Many of us have seen Aaron Russo’s movie “From Freedom to Fascism”. Sadly, I think it time to take it to another level. I have clearly established in other writings, that almost all governments, including the United States of America are “Fascist Oligarchies” run by a relatively small group within our government in collusion with individuals from the private sector, especially banking, Multi-national Corps, finance and media, to control the means of production. See Below.
The Democratic Capitalist Illusion: http://rsjexperiment.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/126/
The Myth of the Rule of Law: http://rsjexperiment.wordpress.com/2011/12/29/the-myth-of-the-rule-of-law/
Complicity Within an Institution; how atrocities happen? https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/HarrietRobbins/TdY6cgWMmY4
In the article “Complicity Within an Institution”, it was noted just how totalitarian countries in our world can be. I think it is important to understand some of the elements that we should consider in helping us understand the larger picture of what constitutes a totalitarian state.
First I’d like to note a few ideas and opinions on socio-economics in general. It’s interesting that the various terms are constantly debated. Interestingly, I have found that understanding the terms is as important as much of the analysis, since there appears to me to be a gross misunderstanding of them and the concepts relating to them. In my attempt to clarify some of the issues in my own mind, I have certainly altered my understanding of many of the terms and phrases over the years.
But it’s still just my opinions. I of course, use the historic analysis of many others to help shape my thoughts and opinions. I may appear to you to be overly pessimistic for seeing the world as corrupt as it is but I’m telling it as I have both experienced and studied it history over a very long period of time. Many of the things I’ve discovered, people look at me as if I’m crazy, but I can assure you that I’ve spent endless hours and years contemplating ever single word I write and I can back up every single word with almost an endless stream of evidence and logic, almost ad nausea.
As an example, one of the phrases that I like is something that both Jefferson and Spooner used “Self Evident”. What I’ve found out however, is that what is Self Evident to one person is not necessarily self evident to another. Read what Lysander Spooner stated on the issue of dishonest Abe and States Rights: “The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.”
“No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really is established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle, but only in degree, between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.”
To me those statements are self evident but it amazes me that someone will debate it merits none the less. But understand there are always various individuals with both ill conceived motives and knowledge despite their ability to articulate rational thought; it is them we should always attach as the use “Logical Fallacies” in an attempt to disrupt productive communications.
Back to the issue, to what in my opinion is required to have a Totalitarian State and when might you know when a country goes from a fascist to a totalitarian state. During my research I just ran into the wiki site that was attempting to delineate a difference between an authoritarian and a totalitarian state. Remember, just some ones or a group of people’s opinion and to me if there really is a difference, who cares, you wouldn’t want to live under either, so why even waste the time to split hairs in an attempt to make a difference. According to Wikipedia: Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life, wherever feasible. You can read more on your own at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism and to me, it is a good definition and explanation of what it is. Interestingly, the definition just happens to have the term authority in it.
What I believe people trying to write about try to do, is correlate the results and actions of the specific regimes and then try to conclude what the various ruling entities being evaluated might be trying to accomplish, which obvious is very subjective and really cannot be done with any real certainty. Since we have learned that all malum Prohibitum legislation is antithetic to liberty, I think it is better to look at the laws and their specific enforcement, as this should than tell you what results happened and/or, should occur. This should then give you a pretty good understanding as to why. For some reason, people like to try to turn adjectives and adverbs into nouns when it is just not necessary and try to read the minds of others. Who cares what people think or necessarily say; it’s what they do that really matters.
Now here’s and interesting belief, I really think that most totalitarian states are really just advanced fascist states. In a sense, every fascist state is just a totalitarian state in a mature stage, just not old enough yet to reach totalitarianism, if you take into consideration, the multitude of “analization” on the issue. Socialism, communism, fascism, totalitarianism and let’s throw in authoritarianism just for fun, are all just various degrees of government, as they go through their economic cycles and knowing when and what makes the differences in each phase of the cycle is only arbitrarily determined, since there are so much differences between countries and their various cultures. I’m making this point because, I see and hear people spending so much time debating the terms instead of trying to stop the spread of the usurpations of rights, which is the only real way to stop fascism and the other “isms” just noted. In other words, they’re all bad, just some worst than others the longer they can maintain their dominance.
So, as the title of this article says, I’m going to give you my arbitrarily determined opinion on what needs to happen for any country to go from the fascist to the totalitarian stage.
I think the single most important phenomena that needs to occur, is the “inability” to hold the majority leadership in government accountable for usurpations of individual rights and property. Once that occurs, it appears that you cannot stop what is occurring no matter what the populous tries to do. Remember that I wrote about both legislative acts and enforcement as the prominent issues to look at when trying to determine when the totalitarian phase exists.
Count 1. The Right to Redress of Grievance usurped on May 8, 2007. http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/Redress/PetitionTax.htm
This one single case is extremely important, as it proved that those in government no long have to even answer questions pertaining to the laws they write. A formal Redress of Grievance under Article I was first submitted to Congress, the Administration and than a law suit trying to have the Judiciary mandate that the government answer the various questions. When the Supreme Court refused to hear the final Appeal, the 1st Amendment Right was formally usurped, however those following the legal system knew this long ago, it just wasn’t proven by a specific case yet.
There is an abundance of judicial cases that show how the Judiciary protects both the Administration and Congress but also the various members of the Judiciary themselves when it comes to suits against individuals in government. These suites are summarily dismissed for basically two reasons given by the Judges. 1. They are protected by sovereign immunity and 2. They claim to have no subject matter jurisdiction. Sovereign immunity is a plausible reason, as long as the individual or group has not stepped outside their authority in the performance of their jobs. However they constantly do in many people’s opinion or they would not file suits unless this was occurring. Interestingly the Government does on occasion award damages against individuals but it is not generally in cases where the power of the Federal Government would be reduced by the winning opinion. Remember, each one of these issues, is a book in of itself, and one only has to do some minimal research to find the evidence to support my contention(s) on this matter. Ask any honest Constitutional Attorney and he will give you the support on the usurpation of not only this right but also many of the others if you take into consideration the intent of the founders.
Count 2. When government Prosecutors and Courts summarily participate in Judicial Corruption and fraud to defend its actions, especially in cases where there is a confiscatory action or an issue relating to their confiscatory ability on the part of the government against Citizens. A good example is US v John Ellis et al in 2001 with the trial moved to Miami where a Jury was selected that could hardly speak English in a case involving complicated Declaration of Trusts covered under Florida Statues 609 and legal asset planning strategies. Once the Court found that the Defendants did not have much earning and all the necessary disclosures were given to the Trustees, they based the sentencing on what total assets were transferred into one specific trust and allocated that to the Defendants earnings to reach a necessary minimum for jail time of $5 Million. The entire group of 6 people probably didn’t earn more than $750,000 over the five year period. Since the government thought they were defrauding the government of millions and had spend years investigating this group, (it took (3) grand Juries to get an indictment) they had to cover up their unwarranted prosecution by fraud. The Defense was not even allowed to challenge the Judges determination of the amount claimed in the so-called fraud, which to this day the Courts have yet to specify. The partial Latin Jury was bamboozled by lies and innuendos with never a specific fraud proven.
Count 3. A constant flow of news making incidents of police brutality and corruption which are really results of the corruption in the judiciary, that they must enforce. Police pretty much have to go along with the game to keep their jobs and many take their jobs very seriously especially the long and higher up in tenure they get.
In my opinion, as noted Count 3 is more an indirect ramification of the actions in Counts 1 and 2. The Cops know what’s going on and if they are not protected by the Judiciary, the entire system would come down if Law Enforcement turned on the Judiciary.
Actually it is my opinion that almost all the ills within any society stem from the corruption within the Judiciary, especially at the higher levels such as the Federal Courts in this Country, as they can basically thwart any challenges by We the People. The can safeguard Corporate corruption, as they have done with the elite banking and finance institution over the mortgage fiasco and bailouts, just as easily as the can protect the ruling class from prosecution. Case dismissed. In my opinion we are now a totalitarian state and probably have been for a number of years. Think of it this way. When the Citizens lose control of their judiciary and it becomes a system paid for by the highest bidder, you’re cooked and therefore so is justice. You can pretty much guaranty once this happens that it won’t be very long until the system implodes or self destructs. Once everyone figures out that justice will be serving only those that are willing to and can pay off the judiciary, corruption will escalate in both the confiscatory elements within government and in justice itself.
Many libertarians believe that government itself is a power brokerage cartel and with democracy and even a democratic republic unable to curb it over reaching powers, that it is just a matter of time before you go from the model of limited government to a totalitarian regime. This has surely been the historical results within the United States which is probably the greatest experiment of its kind ever conducted. The failure of the majority using a Constitution as that legal foundation of a society to curb the usurpations, by government itself, of inalienable rights has placed a horrendous burden on the recent past, current and future generations. Only violence has ever reshaped a society back to a period of limited government and that is not a tolerable or long term solution.
Many people including Jefferson and Lincoln have participated in the usurpation of individual rights, Jefferson with using public funds to purchase the Louisiana territory and Lincoln to forcibly maintain the southern States within the Union, setting a precedence that has contributed to a continuous and endless stream of usurpations. Theoretically, the judicial system should have stepped up and prohibited the purchase.
Probably the most libertarian President in history, Jefferson appears to have foreseen the destructive forces of an unregulated Judiciary. Thinking that the other branches could curtail the monetary and political influences upon such few people within the Judiciary, in my opinion has proven to be our greatest nemesis. This quote by Jefferson appears to show that he had a great uncertainty towards the judiciary to maintain their integrity. "The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and un-alarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them."
I have struggled throughout my adult life to find a method of curtailing first, thinking that it was politicians, than understanding that it is the Judiciary with the ultimate power. It must be a social system, yet we see what happens when a monopolistic system administered by government, a power brokerage cartel becomes the final arbiter.
Perhaps it is a good system, one that discourages through its intellectual difficulty, those that do not have the desire or aptitude to articulate and debate the foundational and fundamental legalities of a society or assist others in mitigating their differences.
What I do believe is that having such few individuals with the monopolistic power over the rule of law, as we do now in this country, appears not to work no matter how much or what system is put in place to curb potential abuses.
Even though I’m an anarchist in theory, I am somewhat anxious towards competing unregulated systems, as the Celtics perhaps utilized, just becoming power brokerage cartels amongst the people they lord over. I have proposed such a system at http://rsjexperiment.wordpress.com/home/ and have yet to entice those to assist or even control the creation and implementation of such a system.
Some tell me to just go out and make as much “honest” money as you can and this will show others that free enterprise works and that the government will eventually drown in its own waste and stupidity and that does have merit. However, I do not see the majority benefiting from such an action though, as government has such a hold through a multitude of confiscatory mandates on our everyday actions, that a large percentage of society are unable to survive in a dignified manner under such financial burdens, most of which should not exist as they breach our inalienable rights. Once again, the Judiciary failed at doing its primary goal, that of protecting the individual/inalienable rights protected within the Constitution, and we have lost control over those individuals who are now in power with no know system or methodology for recourse. The foxes are in total control, and the chickens, oh well, they’re pretty much on the menu.
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, it’s necessary consequence. - Thomas Jefferson
As both Jefferson and Adams neared their death, they were highly discouraged by the course of actions of the newly formed democratic Republic. They even knew back than that it does not take long for the tyranny of those in government power to show their ugliness.