World War III
Against the Money Trust?
Bankruptcy statistics for
both Canada and the United States indicate that the North American marketplace has become
an economic war zone. The marketplace, as currently constituted, is not working --
certainly, not for all the people. The mounting destruction -- both economic and psychic
-- betrays a massive struggle for power. The immense concentration of economic
powers has made it easy for big players to destroy or overthrow their competitors. The
Citizen can easily be overpowered by Transnationals; these increasingly behave like
Para-Governments. Many Laws are effectively being replaced by the Administrative
Procedures of Para-Governments. And Governments are behaving like Big Business.
MIGHT AS WELL PRIVATIZE THE GOVERNMENT -- AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THE POLICE FORCE.
Many people feel plundered
by what they perceive as economic tyrants. Frustration and anger against Big Business and
Big Government are visible everywhere. As a result, loyalty and social cohesion have
degenerated into considerable distrust.
achievements in science and technology, many feel oppressed and subjugated by hostile
economic forces. Science and technology should have increased human freedom.
Instead, they are increasingly used to control and dominate almost every aspect of human
economic life. Most dangerous, the Rule of Law has become substantially biased in favor of
Big Business and Big Government. In other words, many believe that the very foundation of
Democracy -- the Rule of Law -- has been corrupted to the detriment of the Majority.
So far, the economic war
between the Citizen and the Money Trust has been limited to individualized economic duels.
The naked economic power of the Money Trust -- which derives from depositors' money, net
litigation advantages, governments that have been subjugated by massive debts, propaganda,
etc. -- can be targeted arbitrarily at anyone, anytime, anywhere. Most citizens
are a few paychecks away from poverty. Many, therefore, are terrorized by the fear of
losing their jobs, their homes, their cars, their loans, their dignity . . .
So long as citizens are not
organized, and a new universal creed for overthrowing greed has not been found, the Money
Trust has little to fear. Still, in a democracy, the ultimate power resides with the
majority. And the Tyranny of the Majority can bring down the Money Trust.
The combats between citizens and the Money Trust can escalate if distrust spreads
spontaneously to a significant majority of the population. Without trust the Money
- Simple devices such as legal
withdrawals of deposits by large numbers of citizens around the world can paralyze, even
cripple the Money Trust.
David Ricardo, the famous economist, addressed the issue of runs on banks as follows:
every man withdraw his balance from his banker on the same day, many times the
quantity of Bank notes now in circulation would be insufficient to answer such a
demand"1 [my emphasis and italics].
such panics, Banks have no security, on any system; from their very
nature they are subject to them, as at no time can there be a Bank, or in a country, so
much specie or bullion as the monied individuals of such country have a right to
demand"2 [italics in the original; the
emphasis is mine].
Zinn on the General Withdrawal of Loyalty.
In a Chapter entitled "The Coming Revolt of the Guards,"3 Howard Zinn expressed "a
hope" that people will withdraw their loyalty from the system; he argued that
"Capitalism has always been a failure for the lower classes" and that "[i]t
is now beginning to fail for the middle classes."4 The power of the elite consists of weapons,
money, and control of information. These, he argued, would be "useless in
the face of a determined population."5
generalized annulment or abrogation of unfair or unjust contracts can wreck havoc. The
ensuing legal panic could lead to a run on the Justice System. To paraphrase
Ricardo: against such
panics, Creditors have No Security, on
any Justice System.
Should there be a
spontaneous open rebellion (a generalized legal withdrawal of unmerited cooperation,
loyalty, or trust) against the Money Trust, then, following the logic of Carl von
Clausewitz, both "superiority of numbers" and "moral forces" would
favor the Citizen.6 Tactics could be modeled after
those that led to the Declaration of Independence. Citizens could declare their
independence from the Money Trust and call for the establishment of that Rule of Law that
would be "most wholesome and necessary for the public good."7 Note that the objective of the
rebellion could never be the destruction of the Money Trust, as this can never be in
anyone's interest. The objective could only be the destruction of the Darwinistic net
advantages that are embedded in the Rule of Law. For this, the People would have to
change the orientation of the Law:
FROM THE SOLOMONIC CREED
-- "THE RICH RULETH OVER THE POOR, AND THE BORROWER IS SERVANT TO THE
LENDER" [Proverbs 22:7] --,
TO THE DEMOCRATIC CREED
-- "THE RICH RULETH OVER HIS OR HER MONEY, AND BOTH THE LENDER AND THE BORROWER HAVE EQUAL
RIGHTS AND ADVANTAGES."
Only then would Jefferson's
Revolution be truly complete; only then would the Voltairian two plus two make four.
The Economic Rights of Man are not a luxury -- they are absolutely essential to the
conduct of business in the marketplace. The reason is elementary:
IF THE ECONOMIC RIGHTS OF
PEOPLE CAN BE ABROGATED, THEN, SURELY, UNFAIR CONTRACTS CAN BE ABROGATED TOO.
But there is still the Adam
Smith problem: so long as "work done by slaves"
remains "in the end the dearest of any,"8 greed could still compel the
Money Trust to maintain economic servitude by force. If so, would the People defend their
interests? I believe they would. Why? Because:
- The People have the numeric
advantage -- as the Electorate, they can dominate events.
- The People have no problem
finding brilliant and bold leaders -- when their rights were invaded, the Americans found
Washington, Jefferson, etc.
- Brilliant leaders do not
leave things to time or chance -- when they are threatened with a War they plan
Machiavelli on War and Money. What would the People need to win
the War? For an informed answer, follow Machiavelli's procedure: look in history. First
search for similar incidents, then enquire as to "consequence" and "line of
conduct" of those involved.9 What you find out might surprise
you. For example, citing Titus Livy, Machiavelli pointed out that "three things are
necessary for war; plenty of good soldiers, wise generals and good luck."10 But, what about money? Machiavelli:
" . . . it is not gold, as is acclaimed by common opinion, that constitutes the
sinews of war, but good soldiers; for gold does not find good soldiers, but good soldiers are quite capable of finding gold"11 [my emphasis and italics].
See David Ricardo, On The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, Vol.
1, 1951, at 352-372 (On Currency and Banks), especially 359.
2 Ibid., at 358-359.
3 See Howard Zinn, A
People's History of the United States, 1492-Present, 1995, at 618-628 (The Coming
Revolt of the Guards).
4 Ibid., at
5 Ibid., at
expressions; see Carl von Clausewitz, On War (1832), edited with an Introduction by
Anatol Rapoport, 1968, at 251-252 (Moral Forces), and 264-269 (Superiority of Numbers).
7 See The United
States Government Manual, 1987, at 1-3 (The Declaration of Independence).
expressions; see Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Vol. 1, at 411-412 (slave
9 See Niccolò
Machiavelli, The Discourses (1531), edited by Bernard Crick, using the translation
of Leslie J. Walker, with revisions by Brian Richardson, 1970, at 51 (expressions from
Father Leslie Walker's The Discourses of Niccolò Machiavelli, Vol. 1, London,
1950, at 82-83).
10 Ibid., at
300-303 (Money is not the Sinews of War, as it is commonly supposed to be), especially
11 Ibid., at