This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.
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. – Woodrow Wilson
The title this small article is based on a work by a Nobel Prize winner for Literature. It is a work which, somewhat curiously, has been unpublished in the Western World – but more upon this subject later in context of Government by opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men as President Wilson put it in the quote above.
As President Wilson put it in the quote above, ‘I am a most unhappy man’. The cause of unhappiness in these small quarters is the ruination not just of a country, but of many countries in the Western World.
In the almost one hundred years since Woodrow Wilson wrote concerning the ruination of the United States of America it is the case that the system of credit has become even more concentrated, and there have been at least two major Economic Depressions and countless wars, including two on such a scale as to be designated ‘World War’.
We are indeed in a war as these words are written – and it is primarily a war concerning control of the system of credit as a further transfer of resources to a small group of ‘men’ as would so have their dominance realized?
The small group of dominant men of which President Wilson wrote so prescient has grown even more dominant in the last hundred years, much as their opinion and duress has been elaborated upon Geopolitically in the course of their living ‘together’ with the Citizenry or mere subjects of the Nations which they dominate?
One hundred years ago the small group of dominant men was referred to as ‘The Money Trust’; today ‘we’, sense of Zamyatin as opposed to ‘The People’ are not permitted to be so ‘articulate’ or perspicacious in referring to the division between the 99% and 1% -and this lack of articulation and perspicacity in sense of disseminated opinion by mainstream media is an expression of the ‘dominance’ of which President Wilson wrote of almost one hundred years ago?
The dominance of the small group of ‘men’ as President Wilson elected to refer to, and here these small quarters are inclined to be more polemical in that the term ‘Stateless Bastards’ is considered more apposite apropos of ‘Globalization’ as a dominance and the subjugation of nation State to system of credit’ by a small minority – ‘bastards’ because they have no legitimate relationship to ‘Man’ thru their abrogation of Humanity itself, and ‘Stateless’ in as much as they have no loyalty to anything but profit and care not for any concept of ‘Nation’ as entails ‘Sovereignty’ in context of what amounts to idiosyncratic deviation determined by ‘The People’ as a denial of their dominance and the Democratic right to dissent; their dominance remaining one of system of credit control as a euphemism for ‘usury’ at the ‘apex’ where there is ‘control and issue of currency’?
Such the ‘system of credit’, indeed?
It is at such juncture that there must be recourse to referral to the Nobel Prize winner for Literature in 1970 and the ‘somewhat curious reality’ of what can be contended his greatest work being unpublished in the English language. Most people associate Alexandr Solzenhitsyn with ‘One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich’ or ‘The Gulag Archipelago’- they do not associate him, alas, with his work entitled ‘Two Hundred Years Together’. This is a somewhat curious reality as per the Alexander Conan Doyle story ‘The Adventure of Silver Blaze’; whereby the dog which did nothing in the night time provides Sherlock Holmes with the clue requisite to solve the crime?
That is to say, an absence can be as revealing as a plenitude when it comes to dominance – and crime?
Apropos of same, the proposition by Voltaire, given the territory we are about to enter, demands detail, to wit:
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize
For now we are to step in to the exercise of thought by way of speculation and conjecture concerning opinion, as a ‘CounterPunch’ indeed against Hegemony as a form of dominance – and this is the ‘joy’ of it, is it not, which only Democracy can enshrine as per a written Constitution or Amendment to same – and which denies ‘rule over’ sense of the proposition above?
For heuristic purposes as rhetorical device, the statement made by President Wilson almost one hundred years ago demands an ‘ontological dig’ which reaches to the point of the Eighteenth Century concerning the concept of ‘dominant ‘men’’; as in:
Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes it’s laws
The fact is that what led to President Wilson’s unhappiness was a realization that ‘The Federal Reserve’ represented, and continues to represent, alas, but aspect of the dominance of a small group of dominant ‘men’ as a ‘Money Trust’ concerning the ruination of a country as a Democracy? One writes ‘but aspect of’ in as much as there is an intimacy expressive of dominance which details the small number as rules ‘Wall St.’ in as much as there is same ‘Government’ exercised from what in ‘Little Britain’ is referred to as ‘The Square Mile’?
The ruination of so many countries has been by way of the cause of ‘system of credit’, epitomised ontologically in the Nineteenth Century concerning the money so applied as made from War as ‘Waterloo’ represented.
The same ‘Money Trust’ as profited from the defeat of Napoleon ‘progressed’ as to such realization of war being a most profitable racket towards the ruination of many a formerly Sovereign Nation, most notably of which included the ‘United States of America’, dominance over which attained in 1913; sense of the ‘system of credit’?
There may very well be some ‘diversity’ as to ‘religion’ concerning the small group of dominant men of which President Wilson wrote; but there is no doubt that foremost amongst such diversity is the faith which such as Rothschild professed concerning ‘dominance’? As per ‘The Talmud’ and Zionism, as per President Wilson, Voltaire and Alexandr Solzenihisyn this is not something which ‘we’ are to be permitted to contemplate, let alone debate if we are to maintain credibility – such the issue and control of ‘currency’?
Not to forget the concentration of ‘system of credit’, such the extrapolation.
The fact remains that underlying the’ illumination’ of control of the system of credit is a disproportionate representation by way of dominance of ‘man’ over men, to point not only of the tragedy of ruination of Democracy and the commensurate impoverishment of the majority; and that such ruination is evident today in the war as waged by a few as dominant as corruptive of ‘Humanity’. The eternal truth of the question ‘What does it profit a man?’ is explicate in the USA today, as the dominance of which President Wilson wrote of concerning ‘The Gulf of Mexico’, ‘Fukishima’ and ‘War by proxy’ in Syria as threatens Nuclear Armageddon.
The choice of ‘fission’ over ‘fusion’ as entailing the demise of Democracy was shaped long ago, such the relativity, by a small minority of a group of men as dominant to point of ruination; accordantly what President Wilson wrote of as ruination of a Country has been expanded such the lust for ‘dominance’ as to entail the ruination of the World?
The remaining question, as to ‘Religion’ which is as the ‘elephant in the room’, and as can not so much underline as undermine ‘morality’ concept of ‘Politics’ as ‘moral economics’, is as to inevitability, sense of ‘Fate’?
Can the dominance of a small group of ‘men’ express the greed and avarice of Satan to point of ‘Ecocide’?
That they could express ‘unwitting’ in same sense as President Wilson?
Can the ‘One Hundred Years Together of the USA’ become as of the ‘Two Hundred Years Together’ of Russia?
Is this a question we are soon to discover the answer of?
Stephen Martin can be reached at: email@example.com