While the Banks control Congress, the American people remain the real losers.

“The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.” Andrew Jackson

It was 1836, and the central bank had attempted to take control of the Federal government, sensing the power the bank asserted over the nation and the influence its money contained over the destiny of its citizens Jackson vowed to shut the bank. He succeeded!

Now more than170 years later we find ourselves once more embroiled in a struggle against the banking interest over control of the US government and even the destiny of America as a nation. We are failing! And as we fail, we present a new decade of enslavement for not only ourselves but a season of global instability.

It was 1907, and 71 years after Jackson made the nation aware, when JP Morgan set in motion one of the greatest scams America could ever envision, the great panic leading to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, where Wall Street took control of America.

Until this panic congress had been reluctant to allow the Banks to control the issuance of our money, mainly due to the constituency who at the time understood the real nature of Bankers and mainly held them to a high level of distrust. Morgan and his allies set in motion rumors that created an atmosphere of fright, the rumors were calculated to cause a run on New York’s prominent banks. Morgan then rode to the rescue bringing in some 100, million of Rothschild’s gold to save the day, his white horse made him a stunning figure, and continued his legend as the leading banker of his day.

But it didn’t stop there JP Morgan Jr. attempted the unthinkable, too actually over through the US government. It was 1934 and Morgan led and financed the failed attempt to over through the legitimate presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, though it failed it showed the true character of Americas leading bankers, and showed them as the real villains of American free enterprise, Morgan and his other allies such as chemical industrialist Irénée du Pont, their avowed purpose to form a fascist government.

Now that fight continues at the treasury where some want what Obama and his co-harts don’t, real Bank reform. Let’s face it Congress is completely dominated by Wall Street money and that money means influence amounting to control. Today Money buys loyalty, and there is little money on Main Street to even buy a hot dog. So the loyalty of congress and yes even the president himself goes to Wall Street insiders. Like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.

Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin reiterated Thursday that he would like to see the "Volcker rule" included in the bank reform bill now being finalized, and reconciled in congress, the thrust of the “Volcker rule” would separate banking from proprietary trading, a revisit to Glass Steagall. Since the FED under Greenspan and as he was directed by his association with JP Morgan, Glass Steagall was dumped by the FED and later by Congress and Clinton.

Yes to reinstate Glass Steagall would be a beginning, but there is so much more required. And America sadly lacks the stomach for a real fight.

How do we get America moving again?

17.3 million Americans need jobs.

Vacant storefronts abandoned and often shuttered homes and schools tell the story of the economy in real life 3rd dimension.

Wherever we go from one coast to another, this is the reality for many towns and cities across America , a nation no longer reminiscent of its better days, a nation of shrinking tax rolls and migration.

For many and for generations yet to come, there will be a different face peering out from the murky windows, staring as in a translucent state of amnesia

We as a nation have been in a decline since the 1980’s but is was so gradual a decline that we didn’t notice until the fan turned brown from our splattered remnants.

And now that we see the picture that has so assiduously unfolded, how do we as a people get out from under this elegantly conceived effrontery to not only us, but to a lifestyle that made us a great people?

Yes America was forced to transition, to pick up roots planted while the nation appeared to be on a forward momentum, but that roll wasn’t a boom and prosper roll, at least not for us.

We were used, we had become, somehow in the darkness and shadows, the mere pawns of those who consider themselves the elite of our society, and we as a people now at the hands of a government that has joined in league with them, have found ourselves without recourse to recover the government we had believed was ours.

Instead we find ourselves at the mercy of a street in New York , where the enterprises of capitalism have abandoned American principles and churned from democracies ashes a new form of governance, and it is not one with our assent.

However, there is something that remains more pressing to our society; can we yet emerge from this creative captivity unscathed?

In common parlance, what America needs is jobs, and there is one concept that may work, a return to a form of isolationism, but in trade only.

It is suggested that for America to recover, drastic measures are required, and are offered for consideration in this article:

First; no imports would be allowed unless we as a society require them, as such oil would be allowed, while all manufactured items would not. Whether it would be autos or clothing or appliances, they would be disallowed.

Second; our large corporations will be required to open plants in America and to hire Americans or their products would be denied sales in the US .

Third; these multinational corporations would be taxed 90 percent on all goods manufactured and sold abroad, giving them incentive to reverse the trend begun under the Reagan/Bush administration which promoted the exit of jobs and businesses in America in favor of a service oriented society.

And finally: there will be no additional bailouts for the financial sector, if they lose our money again they will like any other criminal be dealt with in a similar fashion.

The Ism of Destruction Conclusion

The Final Days Of Capitalism

For the past century and a half, the issue of Fascism and Communism has inescapably confronted the American economic landscape. We as a nation, in a defining moment, had experienced a period of indiscretion as McCarthy and Hoover viciously attacked the socialists leaning consciousness as communists. In reality what this country was experiencing was the beginnings of a class struggle, when the United States would adopt the principles of corporatism, capitalism for the elite, against the interests of the multitudes, that middle class that serves as the backbone of any society, the working class.

Corporatism had become part of American economics even before the first great depression. With its beginning firmly implanted by the enactment of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act (FRA), by which the Banks took full control over our money supply. The large corporations, however, would begin to appear even prior to the passage of the FRA, as the industrial revolution began to take hold, and family fortunes had been amassed first through the slave trade then the opium trade with China .

This new law however, allowed the banks to expand the corporate presence in America and to develop even larger more powerful and politically dominant companies, companies that over time would become strong enough to take control of the Government itself.

By the late 1920’s and mid 1930’s the American Banking interests had begun to openly promote Fascism in Germany and Italy having paid hundreds of millions of dollars to both Mussolini and Hitler, in addition they entered into a coup to over through the duly elected government of the United States, the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, in its place was to be a fascist government. History acknowledges that this attempt was led by none other than the JP Morgan banking interests. This coup contrary to popular belief, did not fail.

Capitalism must of necessity control, not only labor, but the markets of commerce, and the product to be introduced. It is because of this need to expand its market presence that corporations continue to grow and absorb other companies, and to become monopolies, first in their geographical area, then internationally. A perfect example of this control is the terminator seed. The patented technology enables a seed company to genetically alter seed so that the plants that grow from it are sterile; farmers cannot use their seeds. The patent is broad, applying to plants and seeds of all species including both transgenic (genetically engineered) and conventionally-bred seeds.

Here then, the corporate presence has taken full control over the worlds food supply, they control what foods will be grown and the amount necessary, and the seeds by which to develop that market, and thereby the price.

What else could the purpose of this technology be, except to control the food supply and its market? Accordingly, several countries also following the capitalists formula have passed laws coercing this seeds use, thereby controlling agriculture on an international scale.

Capitalism now in its end stage had three important periods:

According to the Marxist economist Ernest Mandel, (a revolutionary Marxist theorist).who popularized the term “late-stage capitalism” with his 1972 Phd dissertation, believed that late-stage capitalism will be dominated by the machinations, or perhaps better, fluidities, of financial capital.

In his work Late Capitalism, Mandel argues for three periods in the development of capitalism. The last or "Late capitalism" is a term sometimes used to refer to capitalism from about 1950 onwards, generally with the implication that it is historically limited, and will eventually end.

The three stages:

First is market capitalism, which occurred from 1700 to 1850 and is characterized largely by the growth of industrial capital in domestic markets.

Second is monopoly capitalism, which lasted until approximately 1960, and is characterized by the imperialistic development of international markets as well as the exploitation of colonial territories.

Third, is late capitalism, which displays such features as the multinational corporation, globalized markets and labor, mass consumption, and the space of liquid multinational flows of capital!

Accordingly, Mandel and the other Marxist philosophers saw something of mischief with the capitalist system, and warned of its decaying effects and of the final and inevitable transition of government. They favored communism as the benefactor of the working class.

Mandel’s philosophy has its origin in Karl Marx's judgment that the capitalist mode of production, like any other mode of production, is in the broad sweep of history a limited and transient phenomenon, rather than being the natural, ever-lasting condition for human life. Thus, it can be periodized in terms of its historical emergence, its heyday, and its subsequent phase of decline and disappearance.

In general, Marx seems to have believed as a generalization that no mode of production disappears until it has developed all the productive forces which it can contain within its social relations of production. Technologies would ultimately become incompatible with the existing social framework, causing that social framework to break down, and a new social framework to emerge. According to Rosa Luxemburg (another Marxist philosopher), that could mean an advance to socialism as she had advocated, or fascism, or a relapse into barbarism.

What we have witnessed of the failure of democracy in America , with its progeny capitalism, is a transition of democracy into fascism.

The industrial revolution which began around 1760 made dramatic changes to the colonial society, by way of its economic functions. The process of economic and social change took place gradually over several decades. Yet prior to the onset of the industrial revolution the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita remained broadly stable, however, the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of the modern capitalist economy would soon change that. With the Industrial Revolution, began an era of per-capita economic growth in capitalist economies, like Europe and North America .

Friedrich Engels in The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 spoke of "an industrial revolution, a revolution which at the same time changed the whole of civil society." In his book A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, Raymond Williams states: The idea of a new social order based on major industrial change was clear in Southey and Owen, between 1811 and 1818, and was implicit as early as Blake in the early 1790s and Wordsworth at the turn of the century.

The causes of the Industrial Revolution and the on vent of modern capitalism were complicated and remain a topic for debate, with some historians believing the Revolution was an outgrowth of social and institutional changes brought by the end of feudalism in Britain after the English Civil War in the 17th century. As national border controls became more effective, the spread of disease was lessened, thereby preventing the epidemics common in previous times. The percentage of children who lived past infancy rose significantly, leading to a larger workforce. The Enclosure movement and the British Agricultural Revolution made food production more efficient and less labor-intensive, forcing the surplus population who could no longer find employment in agriculture into cottage industry, for example weaving, and in the longer term into the cities and the newly developed factories. The colonial expansion of the 17th century with the accompanying development of international trade, creation of financial markets and accumulation of capital are also cited as factors, as is the scientific revolution of the 17th century.
By the late 18th to the early 19th century with the expansion of modern capitalism new political philosophies would emerge vying for control over this new economy. The notion advanced under the old feudal systems of Europe , a merger between capital and government began in earnest with the Rothschild’s banking interests now fully in charge of 5 nations. The Rothschild dynasty would seek partnerships in America , and ready alliances were forged.

By the mid 19th century two opposing political theories or ideologies vying for control of the world’s political structure became antagonistic and began in open debate; Communism and Capitalism. Capitalism an outgrowth of the feudal system, the landowners aligned with the ruling elite, a monarch or king, was better defined originally as a form of Fascism and it was for this reason that Lenin and Marx attacked it. They argued for the working class, that class of individuals that had no right to land but only a right to sell their labor.

Marx and Engels clearly understood the differences, yet we are taught that they are evil, and should be feared, when in fact they fully understood capitalism, but took their preventive measures to the extreme.

Communism which is at the far left of the political scale is as evil as Fascism which is at the far right. Democracy can exist at neither end of the political arena, and capitalism can not exist under communism, but thrives under fascism, it is for this reason that democracy, which tolerates capitalism because the leaders are rewarded by the capitalists, and beholden to their wealth, that any democracy will transition over time to fascism.

The proponents of capitalism have inaccurately promoted capitalism as a more effective means of generating and redistributing wealth than socialism or communism, or have portrayed the widening gap between rich and poor that so concerned Marx and Engels as a temporary phenomenon. Recent history demonstrates that under Capitalism, more appropriately defined as corporate America , the discrepancy between the classes have widened substantially.

Marx thought that Capitalists were evil, that they exploited labor to enhance their own wealth. So far history has demonstrated that Marx view of Capitalism was a correct assessment. In all Capitalists countries but paradoxically America , Labor is used and discarded, as the Capitalists engender wealth for themselves. The recent financial crisis demonstrates the shift from a lack of adherence of labor, to the grants of financial support from those very persons disenfranchised by the capitalists system, the middle class.

Marx succinctly summarized his approach when he wrote in the first line of the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848:

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

This statement is a truism. Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will inevitably produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism will, in its turn, replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism. This would emerge after a transitional period called the "dictatorship of the proletariat": a period sometimes referred to as the "workers state" or "workers' democracy".

The internal struggle Marx anticipated was to be a struggle between the classes, the working middle class and the elitist’s upper class. This struggle was inevitable, as the workers vied for their share of the wealth produced by their labor.

Historically Marx theory was both right and wrong. Capitalism Marx rightly theorized would fail, however Communism would also fail. That one element all have failed to consider in political equations is the human frailty greed.

It is time now for serious considerations of a new economic theory, one that eliminates the banks as the capitalists, and our elected official’s their beneficiaries. It is time for an economic system that would provide protection for the workers, punishes those who acquire wealth through dishonest means, and one that will more evenly redistribute that wealth.

It is also time we began to rethink the manner of control over our currency. To remove that control from the banks, that agency that has abused their franchise.

Perhaps that system would encompass the government itself as the capitalist, and manager of our money supply?

The Ism of Destruction: Part 3

This series of essays relates to Capitalism, and how it has been a tool to promote the demise of Democracy. The theory is that Private Capitalism does not work within a system designed to promote the ends of justice, because Private Capitalization as the reader of these essays will discern, promotes injustice and a transition to an ulterior form of governance.

Volume 3, Capitalism must promote Fascism

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

The early twentieth century Italians, who invented the word fascism, also had a more descriptive term for the concept -- estato corporativo: the corporatist state. Americans, have come to equate fascism with its symptoms, rather than its structure. The structure of fascism is corporatism, “the corporate state”. The structure of fascism is the union, marriage, merger and fusion of corporate economic power with governmental authority, and power.

Failing to understand fascism, as the consolidation of corporate economic and governmental power in the hands of a few, is to completely misunderstand what fascism is. It is the consolidation of this power that produces the regimes that lead our nation.

While we are able to identify the opposite of fascism, i.e., government intrusion into and usurpation of private enterprise, we have not been trained to identify the intrusion into government by private enterprise, the very definition of the fascist state.

Fascism is defined by the following model:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. Encouraged by the prominent display of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing those targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoats as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice, relentless propaganda and disinformation were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “ Normal ” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating an disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Each of the foregoing stages has been fully implemented. Couple this with the known conspiracy to over through the US Government by the JP Morgan banking interest during Roosevelt’s administration, and one can see that Democracy died many years ago.