America could now be described as a totalitarian democracy. That isn't a term many people are familiar with. It may be important to start with defining the term: totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism can be defined as: The principle of absolute control and unrestricted domination by a government. Using this definition, one can easily understand what a totalitarian democracy is. It is a system of government which elected representatives are to maintain the integrity of a nation whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process. It is also noted that it is said to control the lives of its people, using a dual rationale of "public good" and majority rule. This rationale is usually interpreted by the economic and political elite to suit their own interests.
One might also argue that totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, central state-controlled economy, and widespread use of terror tactics.
So, what does this have to with the recent government bailout?
Or should one ask, "Did your elected official vote the way you wanted them to?"
Taking a look at the percentage of people who were opposed to any form of a bailout, one would be hard pressed to answer the previous question with a resounding, "Yes." So lets take a little deeper look into the idea of labeling America a totalitarian democracy.
The government presented this bailout, not as a bailout but a buy-in. And that is exactly what it was for every tax paying citizen, a buy-in. The citizens were forced to buy into the failing institutions with the "idea" that it would "stabilize the market" and allow banks to freely lend money again. But, isn't that what originally got these companies into a free fall in the first place? Were they not told by the government, in the '90's under the Clinton administration, to open up and more leniently loan money to those that could not honestly afford it? Is that the only place to focus our blame, on the failed presidencies of then and now?
Under the direction of the government, saying that everyone should be able to live the American dream of owning a house, the lending companies freely lent out money to those who knowing could not afford it. These individuals were not asked to prove what they could afford, but simply said they were living the American dream. That is not all. One need also look to the Federal Reserve for consistently dropping the interest rate to attract those looking for home-ownership.
What about the people? Do they not take some blame? Most certainly does the blame fall on them. The government did not force them to sign the papers. The lending companies did not force them to sign either. The individual made the choice to knowingly get themselves into trouble and sign papers for what they could not afford. However, many if not all these people pointing fingers at the lending banks for offering a detrimental Adjustable Rate Mortgage(ARM).
The first clue to this "economic crisis", was offering something that was adjustable. Because, in the end, it will adjust itself to make up for what it lost at the start of the loan. But that isn't all.
People began to quickly loose their homes and the lending companies began to panic, as well did the government. The economy began to slow, almost to a halt, and speedily the government stepped in and offered a proposal to the people that they would be sending out a "stimulus check." The government tried to sell this idea to the people saying that it will put money into their hands to freely spend. However, like always, the government was a ways past being late. The people were already past due on their mortgages, overdrawn on their bank accounts, and in an abundance of credit card debt. The government wanted people to go out and spend this money on frivolous things, but the people knew better. They spent it catching up so as not to loose their homes or even their cars.
This is when Americas shift to a totalitarian democracy became very prominent. Without any regard to the opinion of the people, the elected officials went against what the people wished. The people knew that this was too good to be true, and that it would cost them even more because they, the people, would be paying for it with their taxes. Months went by, and the economy was still in turmoil. The little trust the people had in their government, would soon cease to exist when their elected officials went against their wishes and voted yes to the bailout bill.
This $700 billion bailout of the banks, and the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is arguably the largest communistic socialist movement that America has ever witnessed. With referral to The Communist Manifesto, the movement in question is the centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. With the bailing out of these industries, and amounting the socializing of their loses to the American people through the government, one is forced to take a hard look at the previous statement. Even more alarming, is what Cleon Skousen, in The Naked Communist, raised on the floor of the House on January 10, 1963 saying that the goals of the Communist Party included, but not limited to infiltrate and gain control of big business. Another goal was to infiltrate the press and get control of editorial writing, and policy-making positions.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Our big businesses have, and are being controlled by the government.
The "free" press and their editorial writing is controlled by scare tactics against the people.
A centralized state of credit by means of a nationally backed bank.
So, take a look at what totalitarianism is again. Did your voice matter in this recent government interaction? Where you properly represented by your elected officials? Are those elected officials suiting their interests or yours? Is the media using scare tactics to change the way you think? Is the integrity of this great nation still in tact? Is this the start of a new America?
Remember the Declaration of Independence:
We hold the truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety an Happiness.
Sphere: Related Content
Totalitarianism can be defined as: The principle of absolute control and unrestricted domination by a government. Using this definition, one can easily understand what a totalitarian democracy is. It is a system of government which elected representatives are to maintain the integrity of a nation whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process. It is also noted that it is said to control the lives of its people, using a dual rationale of "public good" and majority rule. This rationale is usually interpreted by the economic and political elite to suit their own interests.
One might also argue that totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, central state-controlled economy, and widespread use of terror tactics.
So, what does this have to with the recent government bailout?
Or should one ask, "Did your elected official vote the way you wanted them to?"
Taking a look at the percentage of people who were opposed to any form of a bailout, one would be hard pressed to answer the previous question with a resounding, "Yes." So lets take a little deeper look into the idea of labeling America a totalitarian democracy.
The government presented this bailout, not as a bailout but a buy-in. And that is exactly what it was for every tax paying citizen, a buy-in. The citizens were forced to buy into the failing institutions with the "idea" that it would "stabilize the market" and allow banks to freely lend money again. But, isn't that what originally got these companies into a free fall in the first place? Were they not told by the government, in the '90's under the Clinton administration, to open up and more leniently loan money to those that could not honestly afford it? Is that the only place to focus our blame, on the failed presidencies of then and now?
Under the direction of the government, saying that everyone should be able to live the American dream of owning a house, the lending companies freely lent out money to those who knowing could not afford it. These individuals were not asked to prove what they could afford, but simply said they were living the American dream. That is not all. One need also look to the Federal Reserve for consistently dropping the interest rate to attract those looking for home-ownership.
What about the people? Do they not take some blame? Most certainly does the blame fall on them. The government did not force them to sign the papers. The lending companies did not force them to sign either. The individual made the choice to knowingly get themselves into trouble and sign papers for what they could not afford. However, many if not all these people pointing fingers at the lending banks for offering a detrimental Adjustable Rate Mortgage(ARM).
The first clue to this "economic crisis", was offering something that was adjustable. Because, in the end, it will adjust itself to make up for what it lost at the start of the loan. But that isn't all.
People began to quickly loose their homes and the lending companies began to panic, as well did the government. The economy began to slow, almost to a halt, and speedily the government stepped in and offered a proposal to the people that they would be sending out a "stimulus check." The government tried to sell this idea to the people saying that it will put money into their hands to freely spend. However, like always, the government was a ways past being late. The people were already past due on their mortgages, overdrawn on their bank accounts, and in an abundance of credit card debt. The government wanted people to go out and spend this money on frivolous things, but the people knew better. They spent it catching up so as not to loose their homes or even their cars.
This is when Americas shift to a totalitarian democracy became very prominent. Without any regard to the opinion of the people, the elected officials went against what the people wished. The people knew that this was too good to be true, and that it would cost them even more because they, the people, would be paying for it with their taxes. Months went by, and the economy was still in turmoil. The little trust the people had in their government, would soon cease to exist when their elected officials went against their wishes and voted yes to the bailout bill.
This $700 billion bailout of the banks, and the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is arguably the largest communistic socialist movement that America has ever witnessed. With referral to The Communist Manifesto, the movement in question is the centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. With the bailing out of these industries, and amounting the socializing of their loses to the American people through the government, one is forced to take a hard look at the previous statement. Even more alarming, is what Cleon Skousen, in The Naked Communist, raised on the floor of the House on January 10, 1963 saying that the goals of the Communist Party included, but not limited to infiltrate and gain control of big business. Another goal was to infiltrate the press and get control of editorial writing, and policy-making positions.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Our big businesses have, and are being controlled by the government.
The "free" press and their editorial writing is controlled by scare tactics against the people.
A centralized state of credit by means of a nationally backed bank.
So, take a look at what totalitarianism is again. Did your voice matter in this recent government interaction? Where you properly represented by your elected officials? Are those elected officials suiting their interests or yours? Is the media using scare tactics to change the way you think? Is the integrity of this great nation still in tact? Is this the start of a new America?
Remember the Declaration of Independence:
We hold the truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety an Happiness.
