- I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit isMessage 1 of 4 , Mar 1 9:17 AMView Source"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great
industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of
credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our
activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the
worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated
governments in the civilized world -- no longer a government by free
opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the
majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of
-- Woodrow Wilson, years after signing the Federal Reserve Act
- HAPU-MAATY ( MAAT CONSTITUTION ) The Hapu-Maaty is structured to eliminate poverty and injustice in a politically independent Maat society based on a system ofMessage 2 of 4 , Apr 29, 2002View Source
The Hapu-Maaty is structured to eliminate poverty and injustice in a politically independent Maat society based on a system of social balances. The political administration of such a society is referred to as a protectorate rather than as a government as its central purpose is for the protection of the rights (i.e. justifiable liberties) and well-being of the people. In regards to poverty, the Hapu-Maaty calls for a society in which each family is economically self-sufficient based on the possession of adequate agricultural land that can never be sold. Under this standard, no one can ever become deprived of their land or acquire so much land that others would become deprived. This eliminates the possibility of anyone becoming homeless or being without a source of sustenance. However, as a purely agricultural society lacks the social advantages to be found in an urban environment, a Maat society is balanced with possessions of land in a local urban district. This urban area allows for the facilitation of commerce, education, and other social advantages of urban life. To ensure the prosperity of this urban aspect of society, the Hapu-Maaty also calls for a protectorate balanced budget with an unchanging monetary standard to prevent the occurrence of inflation.
In regards to injustice, the Hapu-Maaty requires that all able bodied citizens be trained in law-enforcement and be responsible for dealing with criminal activity. This not only reduces the probability of crime in the average citizen but also reduces the probability of crime concerning police abuses. When citizens are empowered to be responsible for justice, official law-enforcement will be less likely to be irresponsible with its duties. Even at the national level, the possibility of state abuse through the military is kept in check with a well regulated militia to stand against any conceivable acts of state tyranny. However, such acts should be inconceivable under a Maat protectorate that requires a complete consensus of Maat by protectorate officials who only serve for one year out of seven. Overall, these balances of the Hapu-Maaty are designed to bring about social harmony and economic prosperity for all members of a Maat society and serve as a deterrent to the social injustices inherent in a democratic society.
One of the primary aspects of the Hapu-Maaty is its ideological foundation in the concept of justice as opposed to the concept of democracy. Under the Hapu-Maaty, no elections are held for determining protectorate officials and no votes take place to determine the laws of society. The officials of the legislative assemblies of a Maat society represent the interests of justice for all rather than for the political designs of specific interest groups. As the practice of democracy is usually associated with the concepts of freedom and justice, it should be recognized that not only does the practice of democracy not ever ensure the existence of freedom or justice, the practice of democracy isn't even intended to ensure the existence of freedom or justice. The purpose of democracy is for ensuring the interests of a voting majority regardless of freedom or justice. At the popular level, it is a system based on the assessment of a population's major desires and the enforcement of those desires upon all. Whether or not those desires are in the best interests of all or are even fair to all is never the ultimate issue. This fact is in part recognized under various forms of representative democratic governments that have individuals elected to make decisions for a voting population regardless of what the population's main desires may actually be. The voters themselves are not allowed to vote upon the issues that their elected officials decide upon nor are they allowed to veto such decisions once made. The most a voting population can do is elect other officials who will ultimately make similar decisions as the ones before. Even in this, an elected representative for a given district will only represent the interests of the political party to which the representative belongs. All other perspectives to have failed in having their representatives elected will not be represented for the district. In a bicameral system, the democratic decisions of the popularly elected district representatives to form the lower house are subject to the democratic approval of the officials to form the upper house. The officials of the upper house are far less in number than the representatives of the lower house and may have obtained their position through either popular vote or by appointment depending upon the government. Under a presidential system, if a democratic decision of the lower house passes the democratic approval of the upper house, it is still subject to the approval of a single person whose position may be the product of an electoral college rather than a popular vote. Under this person's administration, the policies of a previous administration may be totally reversed to suit the needs of the administration's political party and of the special interests to have financed its political campaigns. Such special interests will exercise the greatest of influence upon the administration to the neglect of a voting majority's will showing that the mere election of representatives can in no way ensure freedom or justice for the docile voting masses. This model of decreasing decision makers the higher one goes in a democratic government shows that the voting masses are not considered to be qualified for making the decisions to ultimately affect their lives (although they are considered to be qualified in choosing the people who will). Only in matters of non-importance to the overall power structure are the masses allowed to have any say in the issues to affect them. Be it a vote upon an issue or a vote upon a candidate, the ultimate choice to be made in such matters can never be of any true importance. The fact that a vote can go either way on any issue shows that neither choice of an issue is so important that it must be chosen or enforced. Voting, in this respect, is a method of decision-making based on chance in which a voter gambles upon a given issue to have the support of a majority. As gambling of any kind is a very irresponsible way of making decisions, governing a society through votes is no more responsible than governing a society upon the outcome of a roulette wheel. This is why matters of true importance can never be voted upon as any issues voters are willing to accept upon losing a vote can't be truly important.
Significant examples exist in which it is seen that democracy is never employed in matters of great importance. In the military, enlisted men are not allowed to elect their officers nor are military decisions made upon a vote. Such matters as pertains to the defense of a nation are of such importance that only individual competency can provide the basis for who is to have military responsibility in making the overall decisions. To employ a democracy in a military organization would be disastrous as the election of unqualified individuals to positions of authority and the making of major decisions through the votes of unqualified soldiers would certainly jeopardize the security of the nation to be defended.
In a public school system, democracy is certainly never employed to allow children to elect their teachers or to vote upon school policies and curriculums. Such matters as pertains to the education of the youth are of such importance that only the adults involved in the educational system may determine what's best for the youth. Even within a classroom environment in which a teacher may allow students to vote upon when they would like to take an upcoming exam, the students have no say in whether or not they should actually take the exam nor is their choice of when to take the exam of any real importance to the teacher. Had such a choice been of any significant importance to the teacher, the students would never have been allowed to have arrived at a decision contrary to the teacher's better judgment. Even at the college level where mature adults have paid to take a class, democracy will only be allowed in matters of non-importance to the professor.
On the family level, it goes without saying that the providers of a household will not allow any democratic decisions by the non-providers of the household that are of significant importance to the providers. As the position of the providers is of ultimate importance to the entire household, only their decisions can ever hold any weight in matters significantly affecting all. Even when looked at on an individual level, a democracy of one's desires for skipping an important regular task would seldom be allowed to override the better judgment of actually doing the task. The bottom line of all these situations is that mass desires are never an adequate substitute for qualified judgments and are therefore never allowed for situations of significant importance by those in power. When such conditions are implemented on a national level, an ongoing struggle between the despotism of the democratic masses and the despotism of the governing elite will take place eventually resulting in a state of tyranny to the benefit of a non-democratic elite. Such a situation had in part been recognized by such individuals as James Madison and Benjamin Franklin at the ratification of their nation's constitution. In a letter written to Thomas Jefferson dated October 24, 1787, James Madison had expressed that:
"Those who contend for a simple democracy, or a pure republic, actuated by the sense of the majority, and operating within narrow limits, assume or suppose a case which is altogether fictitious. They found their reasoning on the idea that the people composing the Society enjoy not only an equality of political rights, but that they have all precisely the same interests and the same feelings in every respect. Were this in reality the case, their reasoning would be conclusive. The interest of the majority would be that of the minority also; the decisions could only turn on mere opinion concerning the good of the whole, of which the major voice would be the safest criterion; and within a small sphere, this voice could be most easily collected, and the public affairs most accurately managed."
"We know, however, that no society ever did, or can, consist of so homogeneous a mass of Citizens. In the Savage state, indeed, an approach is made towards it, but in that state little or no Government is necessary. In all civilized societies, distinctions are various and unavoidable. A distinction of property results from that very protection which a free Government gives to unequal faculties of acquiring it. There will be rich and poor; creditors and debtors; a landed interest, a monied interest, a mercantile interest, a manufacturing interest. These classes may again be subdivided according to the different productions of different situations and soils, and according to the different branches of commerce and of manufactures. In addition to these natural distinctions, artificial ones will be founded on accidental differences in political, religious, or other opinions, or an attachment to the persons of leading individuals. However erroneous or ridiculous these grounds of dissention and faction may appear to the enlightened Statesman or the benevolent philosopher, the bulk of mankind, who are neither Statesmen nor philosophers, will continue to view them in a different light."
" Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny is, under certain qualifications, the only policy by which a republic can be administered on just principles."
" In the extended Republic of the United States, the General Government would hold a pretty even balance between the parties of particular States, and be at the same time sufficiently restrained, by its dependence on the community, from betraying its general interests."
James Madison's sentiments on this matter would receive greater elaboration in Federalist Paper #10 dated November 23, 1787. While arguing for the merits of a republican form of government in opposition to a democratic one, he also had made assumptions pertaining to the maintained integrity of elected officials and to the limits of factions that today are plainly observed to have been erroneous. The inevitability of public representatives to succumb to the dictates of private interests in betrayal of the public had not been fully recognized by Madison although others had not been as naive. Of this form of government, Benjamin Franklin, in his address to the Constitutional Convention dated September 17, 1787, had well predicted that such a system would eventually result in despotism.
"In these moments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, -- if they are such; because I
think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a
blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well
administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before
it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of
In a letter to William F. Elkins dated November 21, 1864, Abraham Lincoln had expressed his fears in saying:
" I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
Fifty-two years later, Woodrow Wilson had confirmed both Lincoln's fears and Franklin's prediction as quoted by Robert L. Owen (the Father of the Federal Reserve Act) in "National Economy and the Banking System," Senate Documents No. 23, p. 100, 76th Congress, 1st Session, 1934.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world -- no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
As democracy is plainly seen to be subject to inevitable despotism, its mere existence can never ensure a state of freedom or justice for all. Most of the rhetoric to associate the states of freedom and justice with democracy are based on a biased view that confuses the benefits of a prosperous economy with the results of a democracy. It is seldom taken into account that prosperous economies have ever existed without the existence of democracy or that freedom and justice are greatly abused in existing democracies.
At the beginning of the world's most popular democracy, the decision to have maintained the enslavement of millions had been decided by a single democratic vote. The two most famous leaders of this democracy are known to have been among the largest holders of enslaved people and to have been responsible for the mass murder and dispossession of many indigenous peoples. Accompanying this democracy's genocidal expansion had been a concept of "Manifest Destiny" that had been of great appeasement for the democratic masses. Later in this democracy's history, a certain population of its citizens had been singled out for wartime relocation to concentration camps while the indigenous inhabitants of the Aleutian Islands had been restricted in their freedoms as well. The withholding of civil rights, the lack of enforcement of civil rights, the government violation of civil rights (nullifying its own bill of rights), racial profiling, racial prejudice in the "justice" system, and the existence of government corruption at every level have all been the common characteristics of the world's most popular democracy. As the willingness to ignore the common good for personal interests is such a general feature of this democracy's population, it should be of no surprise that its government corruption rests upon representatives engaged in the same type of behavior.
In the realm of economics, the world's most popular democracy has completely subjugated its own people through the establishment of a privately owned central bank issuing a non-standardized interest-bearing currency. This currency requires a graduated income tax along with property taxes in order to pay off a debt that can never be paid. Thus, such taxation effectively renders all land and means of production to be the property of the state. If it's not paid, a person will be subject to losing either "their" property or "their" freedom. Ownership and the ability to make a living in the world's most popular democracy are therefore not regarded as being the rights of the people but are merely regarded as being the granted privileges of a fascist state. Fascism, it should be recognized, is the description of an economic state in which the factors of production can be privately owned while ultimately under the control of the state. When the state tells the "free" press what information to withhold or misinformation to allow, or farmers how much to produce, or directs certain corporations in how much to price their production, the state is economically a fascist state. Thus, through taxation and the control of capital, production, and information, the world's most popular democracy exercises fascist control over its democratic masses. In doing so, it is the perfect example of a quote from Goethe stating that "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
On the international scene, the world's most popular democracy is known to be a consistent supporter of various totalitarian regimes and of economic subversion that it may obtain cheap mineral resources and cheap manufactured products produced by underpaid human labor. Such a democracy had been acknowledged by Martin Luther King Jr. as being "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." It is therefore clear that both nationally and internationally, neither freedom nor justice has ever been ensured by the ongoing despotic history of the world's most popular democracy.
In stark contrast to the many shortcomings of a conventional democratic society, a Maat protectorate is established to protect the rights of its sovereign self-governing citizens rather than to exercise power over them. As the central focus of Maat is upon the concept of justice, all decisions are made for the benefit of every person as opposed to making decisions for the desires of a majority. No law can pass in which a single person is to be wronged and all sovereign citizens at the level for which a law will apply are entitled to review each decision to ensure its correctness (in direct contrast to a republican democracy). If any attempt is ever made by a protectorate to enforce an unjust decision, a well-organized militia will stand ready to prevent the decision and have the protectorate officials replaced. It is this aspect of citizen empowerment in a Maat society that ensures freedom and prevents the establishment of state tyranny. Without this mandatory feature, the state would be free to make decisions to the detriment of the people with no means of correction. Only when the people are required to possess arms, be trained, and be organized apart from the state, can freedom from state tyranny be ensured. Furthermore, under the Hapu-Maaty, women are the beneficiaries of both the land inheritance and for representation of the highest executive office due respectively to recognition as being the primary family caretakers and gender representatives of Maat. With the institutional assurance of both economic and political enfranchisement, women under the Hapu-Maaty can never end up as second class citizens or as the victims of a male hegemony. In short, whereas a democracy is ultimately committed to fulfilling the desires of a voting majority regardless of justice, Maat is committed to ensuring justice for all regardless of popular desire (i.e. immaturity does what it wants while maturity does what it should). Justice is the only choice to be made under a Maat protectorate thereby precluding any democratic appeals for alternate decisions. It is this focus on justice that facilitates the social harmony of a Maat society in contrast to the isfat expressed in the political conflicts of a democracy.
- The late Dr. Huey P. Newton, co-founder of the Black Panther Party, a brilliant thinker, pointed to an invisible elite which controls U.S. foreign policy inMessage 3 of 4 , Nov 30, 2002View SourceThe late Dr. Huey P. Newton, co-founder of the Black Panther Party, a
brilliant thinker, pointed to an invisible elite which controls U.S.
foreign policy in the People's name, but in their own interests. Writing
in 1974, Newton described them as "a group wielding predominant power in
the American polity." They care not one whit for American ideals argues
Newton, for they "impose [their] own interpretation of the American
tradition onto the framework of policy making in the state."
Newton reasons this group, which he describes as "expansionist" and
"militaristic" explains the paradox at the heart of U.S. foreign policy,
which states one thing, yet does another. [See "The Huey Newton Reader,"
7 Stories Press, 2002, p. 297.]
Is the majority of the American population against being expansionist
and militaristic? Is the majority of the American population seeking to
abandon lands acquired through a history of expansionist militarism or
are they quite content to remain on those lands and even kill anyone who
should attempt to restore those lands to its rightful inhabitants? Is
not "Manifest Destiny" an American ideal? Don't the majority of the
Americans continue to gleefully patronize the transnational corporations
that control and destroy their lives? Haven't they ever been free to
vote for anything other than the Democrats and Republicans who serve the
Just like a lynch mob and just like six wolves and three sheep voting on
what to have for lunch, America is a democracy. Democracies have never
been about justice, that's why they exist. Any insistence on justice in
all decisions affecting the public means that a democratic vote of the
majority can't be used to get its own way in spite of justice. Justice
says to the wolves and the sheep that you won't be allowed to eat your
fellow members but a democracy puts it to a vote. Justice isn't
determined through votes and a democracy can't be a democracy if it's
restricted to only doing the right thing. It is the ability to ignore
doing what's right in order to appease a voting majority that makes a
democracy what it is.
We have a democracy. And like many people around the world and
throughout history, we don't have justice. A lack of democracy has
never been the problem. After all, it had been a democracy that had
voted to retain slavery for itself from the very beginning. It's a lack
of justice that's always been the problem. And an unjust people cannot
be expected to vote for anything other than unjust representatives to
represent their unjust will.
Evil is what evil does. Democracies aren't established to prevent evil,
they're established to allow it at a voting majority's convenience.