The Continued Fleecing of America and Its Citizens by the Financial “Elites”

Many people are raised with an orientation, indeed an imperative sense, that puts compassion and ethics — ones values and principles — as central to their dealings with others. This foundation becomes part of their identities and shapes the directions that their lives take.

One does not have to look only at charitable institutions to find this to be the case. One can see it in the teacher who works day after day against daunting odds to uplift materially disadvantaged children living in extreme slums. Further, the Girl Scouts, who devise a special project at a senior center, exemplify this mind set when they earnestly strive to bring joy to the elderly of whom many are on their last legs. Likewise, the social workers tirelessly toiling to help families whose homes have been foreclosed and the countless volunteers who gather supplies for victims of disasters typify this focus.

Therefore, one has to wonder about the morality of numerous U.S. government and business leaders, especially the ones who routinely put their own limitless self-gain above the needs of others. What sorts of people are these? Just how did their families and society in general fail them in matters of conscience?

In considering the answers, one often winds up incredulous and outraged by their actions. After all, what kinds of individuals lie about their underlying motives while they systematically destroy the people, the culture and the country of Iraq primarily in order to wrestle control of their oil for companies that favor American interests? What sort of individuals condone torture as their nation’s covert plan to help ensure that domination of the Middle East can be better assured? What sort of individuals publicly talk of service to society and change in which we can all believe while expanding resource wars in order to secure geo-political supremacy over regions rich in fossil fuels at a time during which scientific evidence inarguable points to the need to direct national focus on benign forms of energy?

Certainly, they are aware that this redirection of plans is a necessary precondition for future generations to not face a living hell on Earth due to climate change effects. Surely they must know that they have no moral or legal right to invade other lands for coveted war spoils regardless of the degree that they seem essential to have. Do they?

It is especially worthwhile to ponder the responses to these kinds of questions as one, also, considers that these same individuals, of whom many are U.S. Congressmen, annually allocate fifty-four percent of the federal budget to military related endeavors. Simultaneously, they are mandated to hand over nineteen percent further to the ongoing payment of interest on monies currently owed to maintain their present scale of funding for armed service, bailouts and other reckless ventures.

These circumstances leave a whopping twenty-seven percent left over for ALL other U.S. programs unless, of course, further loans beyond the ongoing intended ones are taken out, i.e., to purchase Swine Flu vaccines. With these additional costs in mind, one can anticipate that legislators will continue in arrangements to borrow staggering sums of money to sustain their disastrous spending patterns, as is mentioned in “The U.S. Federal Budget Pipeline: Where Do The Dollars Drain?” All the while that individual States, like California, and individuals continue to be devastated by the indirect consequences.

In a similar vein, one questions about the morality of people who keep supporting big business practices and amassing wealth for themselves ((Google Answers: average income of members of the u.s. congress and The Congressional Millionaires Club.)) like modern duplicates of mad King Midas while an increasing number of their fellow Americans wind up jobless and homeless. Meanwhile, a backdrop like this leads Ramsey Clark to suggest, “But we’re not a democracy. It’s a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us that. In reality, we’re a plutocracy: a government by the wealthy.”

Accordingly, U.S. employment positions continue to transfer to offshore sites to bolster a plan for maximum profits for the already grossly enriched at the expense of the populace at large. Analogously for companies on U.S. soil, cutbacks and closures have a similarly deleterious effect in terms of under and unemployment.

In relation, the public, obviously, cannot make lots of purchases while an inadequate supply of money is coming into households during which time store shelves are overstocked due to past practices wherein the market became saturated with far too many items for a wide variety of products. Consequently, the manufacture of goods grinds to an almost complete halt and the economy continues to tumble.

Yet no Works Progress Administration (WPA) and extended Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) programs are put in place to make up for the financial deficits that average people are experiencing even though the move could, indirectly, jumpstart spending. Further, the groups that stand to fabulously benefit from the status quo remaining as is continue to do so even as the masses flounder.

As Paul Kane points out in “Lawmakers Reveal Health-Care Investments”:

The list of [lawmakers] who have personal investments in the corporations that will be affected by the [health-care] legislation — which President Obama has called this year’s highest domestic priority — includes Congress’s most powerful leaders and a bipartisan collection of lawmakers in key committee posts. Their total health-care holdings could be worth $27 million, because congressional financial disclosure forms released yesterday require reporting of only broad ranges of holdings rather than precise values of assets.

Health care is not the only industry that is both heavily regulated by Congress and heavily invested in by lawmakers. As The Washington Post reported Thursday, more than 20 members of the House leadership and the House Financial Services Committee hold investments in companies that received more than $200 billion in federal bailouts.

On the Senate banking committee, at least a half-dozen senators had significant investments in companies that benefited from the $700 billion bailout legislation that the panel helped draft last fall. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) reported $18,000 to $95,000 in investments in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bonds, and also that he sold at least $15,000 in Fannie ‘step-up’ bonds at the end of last year. The committee’s ranking Republican, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Miss.), reported holding $260,000 to $850,000 in money market and retirement accounts with Countrywide, Citigroup and Wachovia. ((“Lawmakers Reveal Health-Care Investments,” Washington Post.))

Now contrast their bounty with these stark facts of which all were derived from Michael Moore’s investigations. (( : SiCKO : ‘SiCKO’ News : AP vs. THE … .)) (One can agree with his overall perceptions or not. Either way, it does not change the basic actualities.)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually reported that 54.5 million people were uninsured for at least part of the year. Health Insurance Coverage: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2006. Centers for Disease Control.

According to the most recent estimate from the Congressional Budget Office issued in January of this year [2007], for the ten-year period, 2006 through 2016, the projected spending [for medical purposes] is $848 billion. “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2017,” Congressional Budget Office, January 2007.

At one point, Moore notes where the U.S. ranks in terms of health care around the world. ‘The United States slipped to No. 37 in health care around the world, just slightly ahead of Slovenia,’ he said. That ranking is based on a 2000 report from the World Health Organization…

Meanwhile, the health-care industry lobbyists are trying their utmost to guarantee that there are no major shifts in US medical policies. Why would they press for alternatives when it has proven to be such a boon for them and many legislators to keep everything the same? Therefore, they throw almost a million and a half dollars per day at the effort to shape Congressional opinion while sometimes bribing or threatening government officials in the process. ((“Health-care industry spending over $1.4 million per day on lobbying,” Washington Post.; “Ethics Panel Rebukes DeLay,” Washington Post; “DownWithTyranny!: Has The Heath Care Industry Bribed Enough …; MEDIGATE; “Econbrowser: Fiscal Exposure and Medicare Part D“; “Lies, bribes and hidden costs,”; () “Who tried to bribe Rep. Smith?” Timothy Noah, Slate Magazine.))

Concurrently, let’s not forget that these tempted lawmakers are the very same ones who vote on war and black ops budgets for which, if they make certain choices, they’ll be lavishly compensated with money for their reelection campaigns, as well as receive stock option tips and other perks, such as highly lucrative job offers after they leave public office. All considered, what a boon such alluring plans en toto have been!

For example, “members of Congress invested nearly 196 million dollars of their own money in companies that receive hundreds of millions of dollars a day from Pentagon.” ((FINANCE: U.S. Lawmakers Invested in Iraq, Afghanistan Wars, IPS. )) At the same time, the heads of companies that receive favorable legislation pertaining to subsidies and bailout cash do not make out poorly either. As such, the salaries for directors of certain organizations and their bonus payments are considerable and, for the ones who don’t get direct funding, they still make out well due to favorable deals made relative to resources (i.e., the petrol, minerals, metals, etc.) indirectly obtained through U.S. military assaults.

As such, they can do well for themselves even when they do not make out as well as the banking/oil Rockefeller family or the Rothschilds, with their respective holdings equaling roughly (US) $11 trillion and (U.S.) $100 trillion according to Gaylon Ross Sr., author of Who’s Who of the Global Elite. ((The True Evil Doers.)) Correspondingly, Bank of America chief Ken Lewis made a mere $24.8 million in 2007 while performance bonuses were lavishly paid out in this banksters’ paradise, one managed so poorly that it has taken in at least $25 billion in bailout funds. ((“Obama talks tough on CEO pay,” CNN, Feb. 4, 2009; Executive PayWatch Database; “Bank Of America To Get Billions More In Bailout …“; “Bank of America Has yet to Repay bailout funds to TARP,” NY Post; “BofA receives another $20 billion from U.S. bailout fund.” ))

This sort of happening being more the norm than not, it is apparent that no importance has been attached to Abraham Lincoln’s counsel: “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, 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 the 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.”

With the beefed up surveillance of private citizens by operatives in assorted government agencies and the above sorts of disasters, some researchers are understandably questioning whether the U.S. is slipping towards a permanent plutocratic, oligarchical and/or fascist state. If so for the latter condition, the opinions of Naomi Wolf and Laurence Britt, as well as this following description from the Wikipedia anti-capitalism section, ((Naomi Wolf, “Fascist America, in 10 easy steps,” Guardian; “George W Bush and the 14 points of fascism“; “Anti-capitalism,” Wikipedia.)) might have an uncomfortable ring of familiarity.

…Fascism protected the land-owning elites and is regarded as a reaction against the rising power of the working class…

Adolf Hitler stated in Mein Kampf that ‘the attitude of the State towards capital would be comparatively simple and clear. Its only object would be to make sure that capital remained subservient to the State’. Hitler made a clear distinction between ‘capital which is purely the product of creative labour and … capital which is exclusively the result of financial speculation.’…

Marxists argue that fascism is a form of state capitalism that emerges when laissez-faire capitalism is in crisis and in need of rescue by government intervention. Fascists have operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim has been to promote ‘superior’ individuals and weed out the weak. In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class. Lawrence Britt suggests that protection of corporate power is an essential part of fascism. Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because ‘the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise… Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social.’

Classical liberal economist Ludwig von Mises argued that fascism was collectivist and anti-capitalistic. According to Mises, fascism maintained an illusion of respecting private property, since individuals could not use their property how they wished because the government frequently enacted regulations (on behalf of government allies in the business sector) that were not in line with the functioning of a free market.

Historian Robert Paxton contends that fascists’ anti-capitalism was highly selective; the socialism that the fascists wanted was National Socialism, which denied only foreign or enemy property rights (including that of internal enemies). They did, however, cherish national producers.

One might add that they particularly cherish fiscal producers, wizards that magically pull a seemingly endless stream of money out of the air for their favorite recipients. As H. L. Birum, Sr., suggests, “The Federal Reserve Bank is nothing but a banking fraud and an unlawful crime against civilization. Why? Because they ‘create’ the money made out of nothing, and our Uncle Sap Government issues their ‘Federal Reserve Notes’ and stamps our Government approval with NO obligation whatever from these Federal Reserve Banks, Individual Banks or National Banks, etc.”

Moreover, one can easily supplement his views with those of John Adams: “Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.” (Can you imagine the comments that John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and other founders of the nation would make were they to observe a number of contemporary Congressional activities in relation to banks and other organizations?)

At the same time, it’s not all that hard to conclude that, for some time, U.S. government policy has been one typically called “last man standing.” In other words, it is to throw the majority of federal funds into an effort to commandeer the last amounts of nonrenewable (and, in some cases, renewable, although depleting) critical material goods (through global resource battles, programs like NAFTA and so forth) with a sort of survival of the fittest (a modernized Social Darwinian derivative) model in mind.

As Henry Kissinger quipped, “Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy” and “control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” In other words, let’s use the troops to enforce hegemony everywhere!

With such a Machiavellian frame of reference for expert guidance, the majority of US federal funds, of course, will continue to be slated for such endeavors as broadening wars, interest payments on further borrowed money and ongoing bailouts. In a similar vein, the fittest do not include the looted American middle and poor classes. They are immaterial and, as such, are mostly ignored or, if in terribly dire straits, pushed out of homes to live in city streets (90,000 in L.A. alone), tent cities (updated Hoovervilles) and car parks if they are fortunate enough to still have a vehicle in which to live after their domiciles are foreclosed and their jobs are removed. (Meanwhile, such loss is simply another program to enhance the monetary advancement by the elites — the ones fittest to survive in the ever worsening environmental and financial downturns brought on by draconian economic growth policies.)

In the end, one has to ask whether practices that are aimed at government and business leaders mutually servicing each other represent the best interests of Americans and other peoples of the world. Assuming that this is not the case, great accountability must be demanded of these so-called leaders.

If they cannot be made to conform to reasonable moral codes of conduct, the USA will surely become a terrible place to be a citizen for the majority of people who find that, while conditions in their personal lives deteriorate, the wealthy elites make out just fine due to self-enriching agendas, like deficient public health-care programs, that put everyone else in jeopardy. Put another way by Justice Louis D. Brandeis: “we can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

Emily Spence is an author living in Massachusetts. She has spent many years involved in human rights, environmental and social services efforts. She can be reached at: Read other articles by Emily.

13 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Don Hawkins said on July 13th, 2009 at 8:46am #

    Certainly, they are aware that this redirection of plans is a necessary precondition for future generations to not face a living hell on Earth due to climate change effects. Surely they must know that they have no moral or legal right to invade other lands for coveted war spoils regardless of the degree that they seem essential to have. Do they?

    Well Emily so far what you wrote and wrote well is not going to change. Just the climate change bill looks to be in trouble that does little to solve the problem. That’s called stupidity. For me to watch this idiot’s try to bring the system back to normal is nothing more than stupidity high stupidity. I just made that up. Still time two million to start Capital one voice calm at peace. Think of this as kind of a war. Hay what about those temperatures in the Mid West well think short term like ten years, stupidity.

  2. annon said on July 13th, 2009 at 8:58am #

    Very nice, Ms. Spence – thank you.
    A few thoughts:
    There has always been great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few… the “founding fathers” were rich, powerful white guys, who created a constitution to serve the needs of a business elite.

    As to the “charitable organizations.” Ah, it’s business there, too – big business. At last look, the American Cancer Society, for example, was worth more than a billion dollars in properties and investments, etc…
    Virtually every major orgainzation or governmental bureaucracy in this country – and throughout the world – is organized to mantain, and whenever possible, to enhance, the position of those with great wealth and power.
    Whenever we imagine that some group, business, organization, or governmental agency is actually trying to improve the lives of ordinary people, we’ve almost certainly been conned…

  3. bigbadwolf said on July 13th, 2009 at 12:53pm #

    Emily has the fortunes of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds wrong. She means “billions” and not “trillions.”

  4. kalidas said on July 13th, 2009 at 5:23pm #

    The SPLC is a perfect example.
    Meet the new P.T. Barnum – same as the old P. T. Barnum.
    Morris Dees.

  5. Hilary said on July 13th, 2009 at 10:58pm #

    Capitalism creates scarcity, desperation, poverty and prostitution. It is an immoral system and ought to be replaced. The idea that selfishness is good for society is absurd on its face.

  6. Mulga Mumblebrain said on July 14th, 2009 at 3:38am #

    I think by now that most people really interested in how our species, allegedly ‘sapiens’, has come to its current state, that is on the brink of self-imposed devastation, if not extinction, have been exposed to the theory that capitalism is a form of psychopathy.
    I believe that it is self-evident that capitalism favours those who exhibit the traits of the psychopath, ie insatiable greed allied to gigantic egomania, indifference to the fate of others and lack of human empathy, ready resort to lying, and manipulation and violence to meet one’s ends. And, conversely, it deals harshly with the generous, the peaceful and non-violent, the humanly sympathetic and those satisfied with a decent sufficiency in all things.
    Moreover I believe we must also consider the spiritual failings of capitalism, if you believe such a category exists seperate from the pathopsychological. In the capitalist world, the Nazarene’s words have been rewritten. ‘The meek shall inherit nothing’, or if they get in the way of the ‘winners’ they can expect Hellfire missiles, white phosphorus and depleted uranium. Capitalism is deeply evil. All the great religions and philosophies, bar one, regard greedy self-interest as a vice, but capitalism makes it the highest good. It invests it with risible magic powers, where greedy individuals competing with one and other, in practice always sans honour, sans restraint, sans everything decent, supposedly produce an earthly paradise, a Utopia of wealth for all.
    In reality in capitalism only profit matters. Any detestable action, selling infant formula to poor world mothers, ensuring the deaths of their babies from contaminated water, peddling arms, rorting the financial system, producing intractable, carcinogenic, pollution is not only permissible if it produces profit, it is mandatory. Such a system, by raising money to the highest position in its operating systems and in its ethos, and thereby diminishing everything that is not money, ensures the destruction of all that is not money, including the biosphere and all the creatures in it, including us.
    For centuries this process has appealed to the worst and repulsed the best amongst our species. A process of unnatural selection has seen the evolution of a social stratum deeply inimical to and detached from the rest of humanity. This mostly self-perpetuating elite has long held all political, information and economic power in the capitalist states, albeit recently from behind the curtain, manipulating a fraudulent pretence of ‘democracy’ through media brainwashing, sham elections and open, if comically denied, financial control over the political process. In recent decades they have tightened their grip, seeing the flawed alternative of the USSR collapse, China come over, at least in part, to the capitalist road and by the forcible destruction of the Yugoslav alternative alternative. This triumph has been accompanied by massive parasitism, as the tiny global elite syphon off more and yet more of the planet’s wealth, as inequality soars, and as the ecological crisis of crises rapidly unfolds.
    Clearly not many psychopaths, although happily homicidal, are suicidal, so it must be that the elite realise the deadly straits we are in. So, equally obviously, I would imagine, they have a contingency plan. It appears to me to be plain that it is either deranged, in that they think that they can ‘ride out’ ecological collapse and emerge triumphant after the Malthusian cull, or, more likely in my opinion, given their psychopathology, that they will facilitate the process, probably through biowarfare, and soon.

  7. Deadbeat said on July 14th, 2009 at 4:38pm #

    Ms. Spence’s article IMO is not well thought out and also maintains the notion that all wars are solely rationally based on the taking of resources. I also agree with the posters about “charities”. In fact I’d argue they help to maintain Capitalism. Her article sound like more like a quesy liberal rather than the kind of analysis that is needed to cut to the core of the existing problems.

  8. Russell Olausen said on July 14th, 2009 at 7:49pm #

    You have to admit the biggest laugh of at least 50 yrs was Gates and Buffett wearing the robes of altruism.Cronyism, nauseism.

  9. Emily said on July 15th, 2009 at 6:01am #

    Bigbadwolf, I try to use primary and secondary sources, along with credible ones, as much as possible. However, they are not always available. So I do the best that I can and supply references for some topics so that readers can check out for verity and/or learn more about some particular point. Therefore, please feel free to check out reference # six from Garda Ghista’s website at concerning the sum of money involved.

    Deadbeat, I think that perhaps you like negative reinforcement and, with all of your disparaging remarks about my various writings, I wonder the reason that you bother to read them at all. They are, apparently, a waste of your time and I have no need to justify my stands, rationale, motivation, nor any other matters to you. So if you like to argue and be generally contentious, you’ll have to find another sparing partner in that I, frankly, have insufficient time and no inclination to engage in an inane dialectical role with you with ultimately no definitive conclusions generated.

    On another note, many people, unfortunately, are contented to be largely enslaved by the demands, regulations and programs put forth by the ruling elites as long as they have a modicum of creature comforts and distractions (such as silly TV programs, meals at which they can overeat to their hearts’ content, sports games and other forms of passing entertainments to amuse them). Meanwhile, their legal rights and overall welfare are slowly being eroded since they were not vigilant about the bigger, more important matters.

    Simultaneously, they live in the illusion that they are free agents and masters of their own fates, especially as they get bamboozled by the mainstream media definitions of events. What a shame!

    So, perhaps John Adams is right!…

    “[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.” – John Adams, An Essay on Man’s Lust for Power, August 29, 1763

    At the same time, the landscape of the world and lifestyle choices will definitely change in major ways after resource deletions are more widespread. Those who are not prematurely crushed in the collapse will still have options, but they will certainly be different than many of the currently available ones.

    Meanwhile, some people relish the looming breakdown as is described by Bill Moyers in “Battlefield Earth” at and an excellent (although long) writing – that shows about the nature of our problems relative to the people who seek out domination, power, wealth and resources for themselves at all costs – is at this link: I can’t urge anyone enough to take some time to flit through this evaluation as it is excellent in many regards and provides, overall, a reasonable explanation for many of the happenings of major import in the world.

    The Trick of the Psychopath’s Trade: Make Us Believe that Evil Comes from Others

    Three separate excerpts:

    “When psychopaths are the policy makers in government and the CEOs of big business, the way they think and reason – their ‘morality’ – becomes the common culture and ‘morality’ of the population over which they preside. When this happens, the mind of the population is infected in the way a pathogen infects a physical body. The only way to protect ourselves against this pathological thinking is to inoculate ourselves against it, and that is done by learning as much as possible about the nature of psychopathy and its influence on us. Essentially, this particular ‘disease’ thrives in an environment where its very existence is denied, and this denial is planned and deliberate.”

    “Yes. Look at the United States. The two parties are mirror images of each other. To preserve the image of democracy, both are needed, both serve the same masters. But there are no leaders in the US who are standing up and speaking about the genocide of the Palestinians. The deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are passed over in silence. There is no room for conscience in the US government, in either party, and the control of the press, not to mention other means such as blackmail and threats, ensure that those who might speak up, don’t [ which I covered in my ‘Who’s a low level terrorist? Are you?’ piece – Em].”

    “SC: ?obaczewski has studied these people not from a political point of view, but from a psychological point of view. He has managed to understand how it happens that mad people, ideologues, and repressive powers, in spite of their inhumanity, can obtain the support of large populations. Does not everyone have a perverse/pathological basis, periods when they pass through a perverse/pathological life?

    “Henry: First of all, it needs to be said that “mad people” don’t need the support of large populations, only a powerful minority that can both “drive” the population and control it. Look at the polls in the United States. Bush has been hovering around 30% popularity for years – and that is the population as a whole. But because he is backed by a very powerful minority, the people who own the media, the arms industry and their military supporters, the oil companies, among others, popular discontent doesn’t matter. And as long as Bush’s politics don’t overtly affect the ordinary American negatively, they don’t care enough to do anything about it.

    “Laura: In the U.S. – and elsewhere in the world – even the most oppressed and unfairly treated people are easily controlled by fear, by threats to their affordable materialism: entertainment, sports, gambling, so on. Even the failure of schools, medical care, social safety nets, do not drive people to really question what is going on. It is, as Aldous Huxley wrote, a scientific dictatorship: bread and circuses. In short, most Americans are aware of their oppression, and express this in polls, but those in power have successfully drugged them with a plethora of distractions – fear and pleasure – sufficient to keep them under control.

    “Henry: There is the carrot and the stick. As long as people can continue living in the illusion, they will do so. When the illusion starts to crack, then the stick comes in.

    “Laura: People are afraid of making waves for fear of losing what they have, of losing their peace, of having to exert effort to resist. After all, it does take all their time to keep the illusion going, they must slave daily to keep the SUV from being repossessed, and they want to have time for the football game on Saturday.

    “Henry: They also figure that Bush only has a couple of years left anyway. The system will take care of itself. ?obaczewski’s book shows us why this is an extremely naïve way of thinking. The system that is in place is a pathological system that is at odds in a very profound way with the being or nature of most people. People of conscience are being ruled by people with no conscience. This fact is the primary injustice and is the basis for the other ills of society. Laura: For many years this system has been covert because there were still people in high positions with conscience, but over time, they have all been replaced or disposed of in one way or another, and now the pathology of the system is out in the open, but nobody cares. If you look back over the history of the past fifty years or so, you will find that nearly every public figure who has died tragically was one who had conscience, concern for people, and influence enough to make waves against the pathological types.

    “Henry: The second part of your question is very important, because it is this idea that we are all somehow perverse or pathological in some ways, that we all have a shadow side as Jung put it, that serves as a major prop to the pathocratic system and makes it possible for psychopaths to hide in the general population. We have been convinced that we are all just animals and that each of us is capable of becoming a Hitler or a Bush or a Mengele, given the right circumstances. We buy into this because we have all done things in our lives for which we are ashamed, for which we feel a sense of remorse. We know those thoughts that come to us in moments of heated emotion, thoughts we wouldn’t want anyone else to know or to hear. We sense that we do have this shadow side, a part of ourselves of which we aren’t proud. Because we feel this sense of shame and remorse about this aspect of ourselves, we project onto others that they have the same capacity. This projection is where we make the fatal mistake.

    “There are two issues this raises. First, there is a world of difference between someone who, in the heat of an argument with a significant other, for example, loses control and physically or psychologically abuses that person, and someone who coldly, with calculation and forethought, carries out the same thing. The acts are wrong in both cases. I am not trying to diminish the abuse done in a moment of emotion. But that same person, who loses control momentarily, would be unable to think through and coldly plan out the same act. Something inside of him or her would recoil. In the psychopath, that voice of conscience does not exist. Psychopaths are capable of plotting out the genocide of a people…”

    From a practicing clinical psychologist who read several sections that I shared with some associates of mine:

    “Absolutely correct! For Clinton are good examples of ‘successful’ psychopaths. There was a major researcher in this area that I made students read about 30 years ago:

    “The Neurotic Organization: Diagnosing and Changing Counterproductive Styles of Management by Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries and Danny Miller (Hardcover – Aug 28, 1984) You may want to read the book. Another major researcher is Robert Hare: Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us by Robert D. Hare (Paperback – Jan 8, 1999) and finally: The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout All these are excellent books on psychopathology…”

    Wanda Woodward, also, covers this topic and environmental problems:

    The Psychopathology Of Male Psyche By Wanda M. Woodward
    By Wanda M. Woodward. 21 March, 2008. ….. Wanda M. Woodward. Psychotherapist and Author: The Anatomy of the Soul: An Authentic … – Cached – Similar

    Twenty Nine Reasons People Need To Pull Their Heads Out Of The …
    By Wanda Marie Woodward. 17 May, 2008. When money speaks, the truth keeps silent. Russian Proverb … – Cached – Similar

    Masculine Pathology: A World Out Of Control Ruled By Men Who Are …
    By Wanda Marie Woodward. 03 June, 2008. …… Wanda Marie Woodward, M.S. Psychotherapist and Author: The Anatomy of the Soul: An … – Cached – Similar

    All the same, there are, thankfully, quite a few of us who do not ideologically “fit” with the ways that assorted programs (economic, environmental, social, etc.) are currently set up and to where they are moving. Further, there are several creative and successful ways around them as are discussed in sections of…hEd/4- index.htm.

    In a similar vein, I’m, certainly, no fan of our present capitalistic models as set up, as is shown in a number of my writings like The Ugly Face Of Capitalism: A Blight On The World By Emily … (,. Even so, their effects are not hardly as devastating in some of the Norwegian countries due to other offsetting influences.

    All considered, some people, thankfully, are not readily corruptible. They certainly do not seek to fulfill the objectives of the Machiavellians.

    In relation, Lawrence Kohlberg sets out the stages of morality rather well if one wants to note about one model for ethical development in humans. So he might be worthwhile to check out on online if one is curious about this subject.

  10. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on July 15th, 2009 at 9:18am #

    emily, respectfully
    i do not know whether you have read one of my posts in which i state that if one leaves out just one salient fact from one’s anlyses, one presents a fictitious reality.

    in your post, to which i am now responding, you have left out very salient ideologies or ideations: that of the three major ‘religions’ [read please: cults]
    these ideations [thinkings] i evaluate as major impediments to enlightement.

    the three major cults have always sided with the ruling class. And i see no way, how to change the thinking by priests.
    and as long this thinking is extant, we will be always rigorously deterred in our efforts to enlighten people.

    thus, US ruling class which behaves and thinks exactly like a street, biker, or planetary gang, knows that no matter how they [mis]rule, some ‘pious’ people, who may number 30mn in US, will strongly support it.

    add to that ab. another 20-30 mn rabid USans, and we have at least fifty mns amers offside.
    and there are people who ask, What’s zionism, rome, persia, etc? Add one more fact: last nov 98% of amers voted for warfare; against healthcare, free higher education, right to be informed.
    as i said many times before one needs to cast widest look posible; leave no stone unturned, in order to find causes for a, broadly, master-serf structure of society.
    the structures used be to master-slave. And the tendecy now is to go back as it was just centuries ago.
    leaving ‘religions’, shamanism, high priests out in one’s evaluation and predictive skill, one does not obtain an elucidation at given point in time.
    a caveat. I am stating that i do not blame or condemn in any way ‘pious’ people; they too are victimized by clero-political class of people. tnx

  11. Michael Dawson said on July 15th, 2009 at 11:02am #

    Now we see the roots of your blanket, file-folder level of thought, bozh. You’re a Croatian nationalist.


  12. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on July 15th, 2009 at 11:57am #

    calling names a person does not explain anything. The question shld be what i do and say. I had never been for break up of yugoslavia while it was a socialist.
    Once serbia attacked croatia and many croats and serbs restarted fascism i thought it better that yugoslavia split asunder.
    i am as much a croat nationalist as my whole town and my family had been ’41 while joining tito’s partisans in fighting chetniks [serb royalist], ustashe, germans, and italians.

    and if you approve of america as an empire, what may i call that? And if you approve of US as country, aren’t you also a nationalist?
    so, am i now for croatian independence? Yes, i am. And in spite of the fact that ab. half of the croatiain pop is or is becoming fascist.

    but please try to say s’mthing next time you respond to what i say. However, i may have enough of your mainstreaming. Much of what you say to me is composed of condemnations.
    i gave you a warning: u get one more insult. This one, the second one is the last one.

  13. Ron said on July 26th, 2009 at 5:56am #

    I have a great fear that people are to beginning to be convinced socialism is some sort of cure for mankind’s moral ills.

    Neither capitalism nor socialism create or secure morality.

    capatilism allows for a society to set its individuals in the midst of their own value setting with a high risk of reality to that risk and value setting. advice would be to protect the rights not th eprivileges of the masses and insure a flow of wealth to fall as well as emulate from effort and productivity.

    Examples would be our checkered history. Social aims should be addressed from the morality of the people not the finances imposed by government will , which only seams to divert power to a different group that then seeks to dominate the economics of others. again not necessarily a guarantee of safety or security for all.

    Socialism has the same flaws permanently etched in its history but more so in its presumption that it cleanses corruption from political intent. It does no such thing but does force compliance to the will of the few at the expense of individual social aim and decisions to survive.

    I know a lot of well intended ideas and people think that socialism works on paper and that should give in preference over capitalism, however the truth is far more different.

    Virtuous aims exist in all systems and a certain amount of trust that the government will impose as little debt and burden to individuals to insure choice and survival can’t be insured without civic responsibility and a desire to allow people their space to freely seek their own wealth, destiny and individual set purpose in life’s pursuits. No system can guarantee that and neither system will preserve that if the people willfully give over their individual mass power to government control.

    We are seeing Carl Marxist theory that if you burden capitalism with enough well intention un affordable government mandated programs you can collapse it. To assume that socialism is a cure of this kind of destruction of worth and self destiny is a blessing is very far from the truth.

    The question to ask is are the flaws of capitalism more egregious than the stifling government control and destruction of individual risk and reward a better safer alternative?

    Never assume that one system over another is the cure for human frailty and moral decay. One system is designed around human forced conformity and what is perceived as an acceptable sacrifice; the peoples choice of self destiny, the other is designed around a more risky proposition that requires participation in an effort to succeed and not be left outside of the flow of success.

    In simplicity; capitalism demands participation and socialism demands conformity. One sacrifices the individual whilst the other heralds and rejoices in the individual. There are risks in both, moral cures in neither, awareness and struggle in both; it all depends on who you want to carry the load of the elite and how you want economic, or individual power gained and lost.