Speaker 1: Jesse Jackson. You're welcome forward to Jesse Jackson's junior show
Speaker 1: and provoking their stay. We are in the worldhouse Jumping Max.
Speaker 1: Doctor Johnny Mack is a sociology in New York. A
Speaker 1: smaller practitioner with expertise and subje is a peace conflict,
Speaker 1: social change and movements. He has traveled extensively throughout the
Speaker 1: America's Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, working in
Speaker 1: the fields of peace, development, conflict, and non violent social change.
Speaker 1: Doctor Max's seminal work After Confrontation Then what challenges the
Speaker 1: putative logic of non violent social change theory and practice. Particularly,
Speaker 1: he rearticulates non violence beyond the traditional understanding of non
Speaker 1: violent struggle as principally non violent resistance. He articulates non
Speaker 1: violence beyond the traditional understanding of non violent struggle as
Speaker 1: principally non violent resistance. Important subject matter. Doctor Max's research
Speaker 1: includes extensive study of Doctor King's logic of non violence
Speaker 1: as in the US Civil rights movement. He explicates Doctor
Speaker 1: King's logic of non violence using King's call to restructure
Speaker 1: the social edifice and particularly it's triple evils of poverty, racism,
Speaker 1: and militarism with a revolution of values that is affected
Speaker 1: through peaceable power. Doctor Mack, Welcome forward to the Jesse
Speaker 1: Jackson Junior Show.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Jesse.
Speaker 1: Glad to be here. It's always a pleasure. In this
Speaker 1: week where we have been commemorating the ninety seventh birthday
Speaker 1: what would have been the ninety seventh birthday of Martin
Speaker 1: Luther King Junior, we did turn our attention to beyond Vietnam.
Speaker 1: Vietnam a time to break the silence, and there we
Speaker 1: found obviously the triple evils of racism, militarism, and poverty. Johnny,
Speaker 1: for a few minutes and maybe even for a significant
Speaker 1: part of the show, I like to turn our attention
Speaker 1: to militarism. We've asked for more policing in our communities.
Speaker 1: I remember when I was in the third and fourth grade,
Speaker 1: Officer Friendly used to come to my class and he
Speaker 1: would bring tricks and magic tricks and some candy and
Speaker 1: nice old jolly Chicago police officer had a lot of jokes,
Speaker 1: just wonderful, almost like mister Ed mister Need from Boso Circus.
Speaker 1: He just brought that kind of demeanor. Of course, I've
Speaker 1: not seen the officer Friendly program in decades, because every
Speaker 1: cop these days must be on the streets. There's no
Speaker 1: more real community relations quite like visiting classrooms as law enforcement.
Speaker 1: Today's military between the body armor and the stun guns
Speaker 1: and the massive sophistication at the level of even a
Speaker 1: patrolman obviously necessary for the security of law enforcement and
Speaker 1: light of violent crime, but even the SWAT teams reflect
Speaker 1: used military equipment. That suggests, even on our nation's programming,
Speaker 1: that there is a militarized attitude with respect to the
Speaker 1: American people that the nation itself is willing to accept.
Speaker 1: And I'm thinking now that militarism isn't just what we
Speaker 1: do in Venezuela, or what we do in Greenland, or
Speaker 1: what we do around the world. We are so used
Speaker 1: to what we inflict upon people around the world that
Speaker 1: when it presents itself to us as Americans in the
Speaker 1: form of warrantless searches by ice, half the population are
Speaker 1: saying at this hour that they're okay with it. Johnny,
Speaker 1: That's a problem from my perspective.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Jesse, it is a problem. It's a problem among
Speaker 2: a plethora of problems that we must understand, and too
Speaker 2: many of us don't understand Jesse was intrigued by the
Speaker 2: last hours conversation with a Tiba. Really an important discussion
Speaker 2: that the two of you are having, and it speaks
Speaker 2: to this problem that you're now raising, how we have
Speaker 2: used the monopoly of power, which is what or how
Speaker 2: we define a state its sovereignty, and it's monopoly on power,
Speaker 2: excuse yes, and monopoly on force. Internally, Jesse, as you know,
Speaker 2: that monopoly on force is pretty much what we call policing,
Speaker 2: and externally, that monopoly on force has been worrying or militarism.
Speaker 2: What is interesting in this dispensation at this time in
Speaker 2: the twenty first century, we find the script flipped where
Speaker 2: we're using that external monopoly internally which is anathema to
Speaker 2: the founding principles of our nation. And how is that possible?
Speaker 2: And even Jesse, as you point out, it's being accepted
Speaker 2: by too many of us as citizens of the nation.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm Jesse Jackson listening to Jesse Jackson Junior Show.
Speaker 1: When we come forward more with Johnny Mack, We're going
Speaker 1: to have a deep conversation about the triple evils racism, militarism,
Speaker 1: and materialism. We're going to hang around militarism a little
Speaker 1: while longer more will we come forward? On KBLA Talk
Speaker 1: to the Junior show, I was looking for a quote
Speaker 1: by Martin Luther King Junior about studying war no more.
Speaker 1: And if we continue to study war, Johnny, we become
Speaker 1: what we study. If I study physics, I become a physicist.
Speaker 1: If I become if I study math, I can become
Speaker 1: a mathematician. If I study history, I can become a historian.
Speaker 1: But if I spend all of my time studying war,
Speaker 1: studying the Second Amendment and everyone's right to a gun
Speaker 1: and the right to just you know, shoot people at
Speaker 1: random or run into a schoolhouse with mental health crises
Speaker 1: and take my my if we study war, we become
Speaker 1: what we study. And part of doctor King's revolution of
Speaker 1: values is that he wants us to study war no more, Johnny, militarism, Johnny,
Speaker 1: I think you're muted.
Speaker 2: Sorry, Jesse. Fantastic point. And in his last book we've
Speaker 2: talked about on several occasions, where do we go from here?
Speaker 2: It it manages us to study war no more, for sure,
Speaker 2: But more importantly in that book, it manashes us to
Speaker 2: study nonviolence in all its forms, and how we can
Speaker 2: use it as a tool of liberation, as a tool
Speaker 2: of integration, as a tool for social change and human development.
Speaker 2: And I think that's what we're missing, you know, Jesse,
Speaker 2: we've talked about previously. What you've just said is what
Speaker 2: I like to think of as the human nature. And
Speaker 2: I've mentioned this before. Human beings are what the what
Speaker 2: the academics might call tereleological in nature. We move toward
Speaker 2: what we think about. Why am I raising this not
Speaker 2: to sound academically profound, but to point out what you
Speaker 2: were discussing with the table once again in the last hour.
Speaker 2: We talk about racism. We talk about these these matters
Speaker 2: often because it's driven by the media itself, and we
Speaker 2: were very often spoon fed with things that the powers
Speaker 2: that be want us to focus on, rather than breaking
Speaker 2: those change and those those limitations, and being guided and
Speaker 2: directed by memes and and and what's the term I
Speaker 2: want the algorithms? Uh? In today's current technology that drives
Speaker 2: our thinking and keeps us from really assessing what is
Speaker 2: our challenge today? And more importantly, Jesse, what we must
Speaker 2: do about it? M hm and and and not only
Speaker 2: what we must do about it, but how we must
Speaker 2: do about it the things we must do, And I
Speaker 2: think that that's what TV was trying to get at
Speaker 2: the close of your discussion with him. It's such an
Speaker 2: important What are the things that are available to us today?
Speaker 2: How do we overcome poverty, racism, and militarism or their roots?
Speaker 2: Remember Jesse that we describe the roots of poverty, racism,
Speaker 2: and militarism as bigotry, violent rivalry, and cupidity or greed.
Speaker 2: So racism is not merely a term that stands alone
Speaker 2: by itself, but it is something much larger.
Speaker 1: There's only so much time that I have left at
Speaker 1: age sixty, and others have even less time. So how
Speaker 1: do I address poverty? What is the best way to
Speaker 1: address poverty? For me? In a single stroke, it is
Speaker 1: a tax structure that meets basic human needs of equal
Speaker 1: high quality. Just basic human needs. Some need high quality healthcare, decent, safe,
Speaker 1: affordable housing for all as guaranteed rights, the right to
Speaker 1: breathe fresh air. Doesn't get much more humane than that.
Speaker 1: How about a minimum high quality floor beneath which no
Speaker 1: American can fall? And what is the best position I
Speaker 1: can be in or anyone can be in to guarantee
Speaker 1: as doctor King I believe would suggest a minimum high
Speaker 1: quality floor of human existence. So I say we have
Speaker 1: to reform national tax policy, that we have to reach
Speaker 1: the barrios and the hamlets of the nation. And that's
Speaker 1: the mountain top view, because the valley view is that
Speaker 1: we need a floor. The valley view and there's a
Speaker 1: mountain top view. Now, it seems to me that tax
Speaker 1: policy is a factor in doctor King's message when we
Speaker 1: look at the skewed nature of where the nation's wealth
Speaker 1: and income is going, and why people in the bottom
Speaker 1: third or the bottom fifth of the nation can't get
Speaker 1: health care or even need an Affordable Care Act. In
Speaker 1: the first place, they work already, they have jobs, and
Speaker 1: they can't afford healthcare. They get high premiums if they
Speaker 1: don't have the Affordable Care Act. That means that they
Speaker 1: work every day, but they can't afford healthcare with but
Speaker 1: for the Affordable Care Act. People working one, two and
Speaker 1: three jobs needing a supplemental nutrition assistance program in the
Speaker 1: first place is a problem. At the end of three jobs,
Speaker 1: you can't get some knee. That's a problem. That is
Speaker 1: a systemic problem that must be addressed, not one state
Speaker 1: at a time, not one city, at a time, not
Speaker 1: one hamlet at a time, but by the national government
Speaker 1: which is in which is not in a position at
Speaker 1: this hour to even come close to fulfilling that mission. Johnny, Yes, Jesse, So.
Speaker 2: You've mentioned an important inegal part of the social structure
Speaker 2: that drives in many respects whether there is poverty or
Speaker 2: non and who lives in poverty. You've mentioned that poverty
Speaker 2: is a function of tax policy, and policy is a
Speaker 2: function of governing. Indeed, that is, Jesse, a component of
Speaker 2: the social structure. But there are also two other components
Speaker 2: of the social structure. That's the market as well as
Speaker 2: civil society. What roles do they play. I would agree
Speaker 2: with you that tax policy is important in defining what
Speaker 2: levels of poverty this nation or any nation, particularly in
Speaker 2: a capitalist society, might have. But what about development, what
Speaker 2: about the market? What about a participation in the economy,
Speaker 2: full participation, what about economic opportunity? They also those elements
Speaker 2: of the social structure have as much And I would argue, Jesse,
Speaker 2: here even more to do with who lives in poverty
Speaker 2: and who does not than does tax policy.
Speaker 1: So tax policy.
Speaker 2: Is incredibly important, indeed, but so is full participation in
Speaker 2: the economic structure of our capitalist society.
Speaker 1: So I appreciate that because I watched Jesse Jackson take
Speaker 1: many Black people to Wall Street and make the argument
Speaker 1: for participation in that very capital system. You're gonna hear
Speaker 1: some critique of me and my dad in this. I've
Speaker 1: also walked Reverend Al Sharpton take black people, black businesses
Speaker 1: demanding participation as minority contractors to Wall Street. And I've
Speaker 1: seen the Urban League essentially build its organization around the
Speaker 1: corporate elite and structure demanding African American participation. But I'm
Speaker 1: raising doctor King's point. In nineteen fifty four, the Dow
Speaker 1: Jones Industrial average that measured how the economy was functioning.
Speaker 1: By the way, that average four h four did not
Speaker 1: include black fox black women, they lived in a separate,
Speaker 1: unequal society that was probably not covered by the Dow
Speaker 1: Jones Industrial average. By and large, the market was taking
Speaker 1: off on its own. By the hour of doctor King's death,
Speaker 1: the market was at nine to fifty six. Less than
Speaker 1: one thousand was the Dow Jones Industrial average. At the
Speaker 1: beginning of the Reagan administration, the Dow Jones Industrial average
Speaker 1: was around seven thousand and points. At the end of
Speaker 1: the Obama administration, with all of the hope that even
Speaker 1: my brother Artiba was talking about, the Dow Jones Industrial
Speaker 1: Average was still leaving millions of people behind, even with
Speaker 1: the great contributions of the of the Man of hope himself,
Speaker 1: Barack Obama, Even at the Dow Jones in nineteen thousand.
Speaker 1: Today the Dow Jones Industrial Average is at forty nine
Speaker 1: thousand and growing. Trump's jerking tariffs around and jerking the
Speaker 1: world around. But what happens when the Dow Jones Industrial
Speaker 1: average chows a system that is so intricately tied to
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence, to robotics, to more and more industries becoming
Speaker 1: more and more efficient to turn a profit where it
Speaker 1: doesn't need people any longer. That means the market is
Speaker 1: no longer bound by the constitution. It's something that functions
Speaker 1: over here and out of space, outside of the rule
Speaker 1: of law, with no capacity to provide healthcare, housing, education,
Speaker 1: because tax policy doesn't extract from the progress of the
Speaker 1: marketplace and deliver tranquility to the American people. So there
Speaker 1: is a tipping point, and I'm gonna preach this until
Speaker 1: I'm blue in the face. There is a tipping point
Speaker 1: here where the government itself is now under Kennedy staying
Speaker 1: that listen, no one needs to be vaccinated. Let's just
Speaker 1: catch a disease and let the population itself dwindle on
Speaker 1: its own. Let's stop taking care of seniors. They gonna
Speaker 1: die anyway. Why should we be paying the Social Security
Speaker 1: Let's stop all these minority programs. Let these negro shoot themselves.
Speaker 1: We don't care so that the market concludes that we
Speaker 1: are not necessary. And I don't find anything about market
Speaker 1: economics that supports that human agenda. And I'd like to
Speaker 1: think that I'm a capitalist, but let me tell you
Speaker 1: where I really am. I'm not a democratic socialist, although
Speaker 1: I think Jesus probably would be. But I'm certainly a
Speaker 1: person who believes that every American deserves certain rights in
Speaker 1: the Constitution so that they can exact from the Constitution
Speaker 1: and from America the highest possible standard of living possible
Speaker 1: for them. And I think that I too, achieved doctor
Speaker 1: Greening's dream without being called a socialist, without being called
Speaker 1: a communist, without being called anything but an American. If
Speaker 1: we just amend our way out of the problem in
Speaker 1: the direction of human.
Speaker 2: Rights, yeah, you'll get no argument from me. There Jesse,
Speaker 2: and you are, I think, arguing that not only has
Speaker 2: our social policies changed, but our economic structure has changed fundamentally,
Speaker 2: and it has changed in ways that Ai and we've
Speaker 2: talked about this before. Blockchain and quantum computing eliminates the
Speaker 2: need for labor, for the labor intensive economy that we
Speaker 2: found in the mid twentieth century industrial economy, and so yes,
Speaker 2: even a tax policy Jesse, under that system becomes significantly
Speaker 2: irrelevant if, after all, all production, essentially or the preponderance
Speaker 2: of production is done robotically. Who then works, what then
Speaker 2: creates the value which then will be distributed, and how
Speaker 2: will it be distributed. I'm not sure that that's a
Speaker 2: tax policy issue. I'm not sure anybody knows what kind
Speaker 2: of issue it.
Speaker 1: Is just yet.
Speaker 2: And that's part of the discussion that we must have
Speaker 2: as a nation in the world.
Speaker 1: I am, I am.
Speaker 3: I am deeply trouble that America at this hour, I'm
Speaker 3: losing confidence of this how as to whether or not
Speaker 3: I've asked my people to integrate into a house that's burning.
Speaker 3: I am profoundly concerned about America.
Speaker 1: That's exactly where I am. I'm right there with doctor
Speaker 1: King on that I know it so well I can
Speaker 1: hum it in my sleep, almost in its intonations. That
Speaker 1: has a problem, and it's not being addressed by the market.
Speaker 1: It's not being addressed by the moral fiber of our politics.
Speaker 1: It's not speaking out and for the least of these
Speaker 1: in our nation. I mean, I'm looking at so much
Speaker 1: money coming in to these political campaigns that no wonder
Speaker 1: the voices of our leaders are singing and blowing uncertain
Speaker 1: tunes get elected. You know, man, I haven't raised three
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars in my campaign, but do you know
Speaker 1: how much money people are spending in these campaigns. I
Speaker 1: mean I had to be in a campaign to figure
Speaker 1: out just how much money they're spending in campaigns. This
Speaker 1: is democracy, This is ridiculous. I think money all day
Speaker 1: long to get elected is outrageous. And everybody wants something
Speaker 1: for the money. Everybody they do.
Speaker 2: Jesse, We're going to have to come forward here in
Speaker 2: a minute, but I sure want to pick up.
Speaker 1: We got done here. I'm thank you. Johnny More on
Speaker 1: Kbilly Talk fifteen to eighty when we come forward with
Speaker 1: doctor Johnny Mack, doctor mac and Fiscal Year nineteen fifty
Speaker 1: four National Security programs dominated. Military spending consumed about seventy
Speaker 1: three percent of the federal budget, totaling approximately fifty seven
Speaker 1: point three billion dollars the year nineteen fifty four when
Speaker 1: Brown versus the Board of Education is decided. Today, the
Speaker 1: US military budget for fiscal year twenty twenty six is
Speaker 1: set at approximately eight hundred and thirty nine billion dollars,
Speaker 1: a bipartisan agreement reached by the House and the Senate
Speaker 1: appropriators in January of twenty twenty six, and now Donald
Speaker 1: Trump proposes a military budget for fiscal year twenty twenty
Speaker 1: seven that exceeds a trillion dollars. I am suggesting to
Speaker 1: you and our listeners that the Dow Jones Industrial average
Speaker 1: also follows the history of race in America. Well, it
Speaker 1: follows everything, because every one of us wakes up every day.
Speaker 1: Are we better off today than we were yesterday? Since
Speaker 1: we think that way, since those are our values. But
Speaker 1: today the economy itself is driven by the military budget,
Speaker 1: the millions of corporations and contractors who keep the beast
Speaker 1: of the mill military machine moving so much so that
Speaker 1: this beast has to be fed. It has to be
Speaker 1: fed with more oil. The largest polluter in the world.
Speaker 1: Is the US military more pollution than most states and
Speaker 1: some countries the US military, that's just how much diesel
Speaker 1: and oil and gas we pump into the environment protecting
Speaker 1: and defending the nation. Climate change directly tied to the
Speaker 1: United States government willing to lower carbon emissions and its
Speaker 1: carbon footprint. That's just how large it is threatening the
Speaker 1: planet itself. But nineteen fifty four a military budget of
Speaker 1: fifty seven billion dollars and in twenty twenty six eight
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty nine billion dollars, while we're closing schools,
Speaker 1: property taxes are high, people can't afford to go to college,
Speaker 1: people struggling to get healthcare, and some folks trying to
Speaker 1: find something to eat. Johnny Mack, well, you know, Jesse.
Speaker 2: In nineteen fifty four, the global population was around four
Speaker 2: billion people, well three billion actually in nineteen fifty four,
Speaker 2: and today it's almost nine billion, three times. The world
Speaker 2: has changed significantly, hasn't it. So we moved from fifty
Speaker 2: seven billion in US military budget to eight hundred and
Speaker 2: thirty nine billion, and so that sets up priorities, doesn't it?
Speaker 2: Really real changes. The populations change and the values change
Speaker 2: as well. But the fundamental values that drive the military
Speaker 2: budget also drives the conversation we were having in the last segment,
Speaker 2: and that's our market and those value use are the
Speaker 2: ones we we we mentioned their bigotry and uh and
Speaker 2: rivalry and greed, and how do we protect, how do
Speaker 2: we defend how do we ensure the status quo of
Speaker 2: that bigotry, rivalry and greed or cupidity. We do it
Speaker 2: through our military or our control over the monopoly over
Speaker 2: power or force or violence. Again internally through policing and
Speaker 2: externally through the military budget. So that explained, That explains
Speaker 2: I think, in large part Jesse, your point about a
Speaker 2: military budget that's nearly a trillion dollars now.
Speaker 1: And and it's it's it's not just that, it's that
Speaker 1: the blue chip stocks that each of us as Americans
Speaker 1: invest in for our retirement programs, our pensions, our iras,
Speaker 1: investing in drone technology, investing in IE, investing in robotics,
Speaker 1: our value systems are what we are investing in. We
Speaker 1: are investing in war. And doctor King wasn't just challenging Vietnam.
Speaker 1: He was challenging the conveniences that we enjoyed here in America,
Speaker 1: in my home and in your home as directly tied
Speaker 1: to our willingness to invest for higher profits on the market.
Speaker 1: But he said, I can't negate the fact that the
Speaker 1: helicopters that are dropping napalm on these poor peasants in
Speaker 1: Vietnam are paid for by investments made by the American
Speaker 1: people to fuel the military economy.
Speaker 2: M yeah, yeah, But Jesse, keep in mind, I'm not
Speaker 2: quite sure that King said quite the way. I think
Speaker 2: I'm understanding you to say it, because the average American
Speaker 2: struggling from paycheck to paycheck is not invested in the
Speaker 2: stock market's you know, I'm eighty percent of the stock
Speaker 2: market is controlled by the super wealthy incorporations.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Americans has gone off and left us. I think
Speaker 1: that's no doubt that I don't have a stock yet,
Speaker 1: I don't have an ir right, it is gone off
Speaker 1: and left us. We're over here, paycheck to paycheck, disability
Speaker 1: to check, disability check, whatever it is, you know, whalefare
Speaker 1: check to whalefare check. That's where we are.
Speaker 2: Indeed, and Jesse, what the average American is invested in?
Speaker 2: If there is an average American, I'm not sure that
Speaker 2: I agree with that definition. But let's use it for
Speaker 2: the same think of our our discussion. What that average
Speaker 2: American is invested in is supporting that very system that
Speaker 2: we are criticizing, that very system that allows one tenth
Speaker 2: of one percent of the population to own sixty percent
Speaker 2: of its wealth, and yet we the people, that very
Speaker 2: population that we're discussing supports it.
Speaker 1: How would you remedy that other than through tax policy.
Speaker 2: I don't think you remedied through through tax policy at all,
Speaker 2: because I don't think, as we said in the last segment,
Speaker 2: that tax policy will survive the way we know it today,
Speaker 2: given the trajectory of how wealth is being generated, not
Speaker 2: being generated through the through the sweat of you know,
Speaker 2: of the brows of the ordinary citizen, as your father
Speaker 2: and my father's generation understood in the mid twentieth century,
Speaker 2: or even as we grew up, Jesse. The economy is
Speaker 2: changing and we must change with it. What we haven't
Speaker 2: studied is how to change it. So I'm not suggesting
Speaker 2: that you're wrong about tax policy. I am suggesting that
Speaker 2: we don't know enough about the current trajectory of our
Speaker 2: economy to understand what that change must be. But we
Speaker 2: do know it must change.
Speaker 1: I am I'm right there with you. I just think
Speaker 1: that the change is statutory. It can't be done state
Speaker 1: by state. It has to be the collective. There is
Speaker 1: a role for the federal government in that process. The
Speaker 1: way most members of Congress think, and particularly the progressives
Speaker 1: in Congress, they would like a progressive tax structure. They
Speaker 1: would like to go where and get the money from
Speaker 1: where they went. That's what my father used to say
Speaker 1: in nineteen eighty four when he was running where you're
Speaker 1: gonna get the money from? Just I'm going to get
Speaker 1: the money from where the money went. The money went
Speaker 1: over here to the wealthiest one percent of the nation,
Speaker 1: So we got to go over there and get it,
Speaker 1: and we get it and bring it back over here.
Speaker 1: It's not like we hold a gun to their head.
Speaker 1: We simply hold tax policy to their head. We tax
Speaker 1: the various forms by which they shelter and pass that
Speaker 1: kind of wealth on generationally that is no longer circulating
Speaker 1: in the American economy and benefiting the American people. I'm
Speaker 1: Jesse Jackson, Junior more on KBLA Talk fifteen eighty When
Speaker 1: we come forward, we're listening to Johnny Mack. I'm Jesse Jackson,
Speaker 1: Junior Working Ford to Jesse Junior Show on January twenty
Speaker 1: sixth at six pm PT, nine pm ET and eight
Speaker 1: pm CT. I'm going to Tavistalks dot Com. Put my
Speaker 1: phone right up next to this QR code, which I
Speaker 1: did earlier today, and I became the three hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy sixth person who will be sitting in class learn
Speaker 1: how to do interviews and the Art of conversation based
Speaker 1: upon the tips that the brilliant Tavis Smiley offers us
Speaker 1: in his new six course series Courses with Tavis The
Speaker 1: Art of Conversation. I hope all of you will be
Speaker 1: able to join us. January twenty sixth at six PMPT,
Speaker 1: nine pm ET and eight PMCT. Johnny Mack, Welcome forward
Speaker 1: to the Jesse Jackson Junior Show.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Jesse.
Speaker 1: Good to be here, Johnny, as spirited as spirited a
Speaker 1: conversation as it gets the one we've been having been
Speaker 1: having today. Your thoughts on how the militarism angle actually
Speaker 1: interacts with poverty, the nation's priorities, and racism. How does
Speaker 1: militarism affect the racism dynamic in Doctor King's Triple Evils?
Speaker 2: Well, Jesse, the three These three fundamental King, as you say,
Speaker 2: called the triple evils or the underlying values that organize
Speaker 2: what I've called the social structure, and they are mutually reinforcing,
Speaker 2: that is, each reinforces the other. So just in that
Speaker 2: very simple formula, these triple evils, these three values helped
Speaker 2: to sustain the status quo. And so the military policing
Speaker 2: are used in order to ensure that people fall in
Speaker 2: line with the very two things that you argued in
Speaker 2: our previous sessions, statutory and constitutional rights as they are
Speaker 2: interpreted by those who are in power. They are enforced
Speaker 2: as we've seen in Chicago and Detroit and in various
Speaker 2: communities across the country. They're enforced militarily, they're enforced through policing.
Speaker 2: They're enforced now through new forms of exercising that power,
Speaker 2: that that monopoly on power, through something called ice and
Speaker 2: through something called the border patrol. And these forms of
Speaker 2: control helped to again to sustain the status quo.
Speaker 1: Right. I'm struggling, Johnny with when doctor King says in
Speaker 1: Beyond Vietnam, and I think paragraph number five, how the
Speaker 1: very resources or programs that he thought might work in
Speaker 1: the direction of ending poverty, that those resources are now
Speaker 1: being shifted to Vietnam. And Johnson was profoundly concerned because
Speaker 1: the commitment was to the war on poverty. And he said,
Speaker 1: but now the Congress was pinching pennies essentially and sending
Speaker 1: those resources to Vietnam. He saw the same budget, but
Speaker 1: he saw that it was not feeding people around the table,
Speaker 1: that a large piece of the pie was now killing
Speaker 1: people in Vietnam.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so the opportunity cause, right, if you spend it
Speaker 2: on A, you can't spend it on B. Right, if
Speaker 2: you give it to Peter, you can't give it to Paul.
Speaker 2: The question is how do Peter Paul baby?
Speaker 1: And and you.
Speaker 2: Know that's what King I think was trying to call
Speaker 2: our attention to until Yes, too much of our national
Speaker 2: budget is given toward the military. And the second one, Jesse,
Speaker 2: is interest, that is the national debt. These two are
Speaker 2: the most resource sapping elements of our national economy, taking
Speaker 2: away from so many of US citizens at the benefit
Speaker 2: of sustaining the status quo.
Speaker 1: Johnny, how can we help your program and support your work?
Speaker 2: World House Project th World Houseproject, the World Houseproject dot org.
Speaker 2: There you can find our work and you can contribute
Speaker 2: to the World House Project on our website, the World
Speaker 2: Houseproject dot org.
Speaker 1: Johnny, we have about three minutes before we come forward
Speaker 1: your word of hope.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, Jesse, I was thinking about this, and
Speaker 2: you know I was watching the President's presentation at Dovels.
Speaker 1: Of course, you didn't call it a speech.
Speaker 2: This presentation at doubles, And while we were all struck,
Speaker 2: I'm sure in various ways of what he said, Jesse,
Speaker 2: I was struck by what I saw incredibly important platform
Speaker 2: with who's who of the globe right there. But in
Speaker 2: that hall, Jesse, on that platform, I didn't seen anybody
Speaker 2: look like you and me, or any of our cousins,
Speaker 2: none of our brothers and sisters, none of our parents.
Speaker 1: I saw.
Speaker 2: No one engaged in that conversation. And so my message
Speaker 2: of hope, Jesse, I'd rather call it a message of hoping.
Speaker 2: I'm just hoping that we, all of us, you and
Speaker 2: I are brothers and sisters, as all of our cousins,
Speaker 2: whichever side of the water that pond, as we call it,
Speaker 2: they live, we find the solidarity to come together. If
Speaker 2: we don't do for ourselves, it's clear no one's going
Speaker 2: to do for us. And I'm hoping, Jesse, that in
Speaker 2: this critical time we find a way to come together
Speaker 2: once and for all. Maybe we need our own novels.
Speaker 2: I'm hoping that we'll find that way.
Speaker 1: How profound the words are drowning that you offer, and
Speaker 1: in this reflection, to join your reflection. I can't but
Speaker 1: help but think that a large game is being played
Speaker 1: at this hour, where the world itself is being divided up.
Speaker 1: Black and brown brothers and sisters around the world are
Speaker 1: not players in that equation. Decisions are being made about
Speaker 1: us and for us at the highest level of governments
Speaker 1: around the world, largely based upon the color of the
Speaker 1: skin of the nations that are participating, whether it's Canada, Greenland,
Speaker 1: Europe and Vladimir Putin. You're right, there were no Africans there.
Speaker 1: There were no South Americans there. I'm Jesse Jackson Junior.
Speaker 1: You've been listening to the Jesse Jackson Junior show The
Speaker 1: World House with Johnny mack More. When we come forward
Speaker 1: tomorrow on that Meat Fridays with Gina Towns on kb
Speaker 1: LA Talk fifteen eighty