A History Lesson on Losing To Tyrannies

As we were heading towards the 2022 midterms, I wrote to my friends and sent exhortations to at least sixty democratic leaning newspapers that were all left unpublished.  The refrain was the same.  If the red wave materialized what we know of governing in this country ceases. The playbook would be to shut down the government’s ability to function.  The goal of course, as I told every voice who scoffed at my ignorance, was to create massive chaos through increased street violence (which has been accomplished by doing nothing to subdue gun violence) and continued rhetoric of government failure.  I said the fall could be swift, Trump could take over by being appointed to the speakership, both Biden and Harris could be impeached, and once again Trump is president.  My opinion, should such a thing happen and the wave succeed (and had the supreme court saved the democrats skin by overturning Roe) more than likely would happen, would be for Biden to do the unthinkable and prevent the opportunity for that to happen by assuming unilateral powers on a temporary basis.  I recognized that presented grave dangers and the temporary could be permanent and I suggested ways to prevent that. A  few days ago, I wrote what I thought must be done should the threatening element be miraculously defeated in ‘24.

I had planned to publish this article next week in my Weird Thoughts column, but today’s news that say Trump may become Speaker anyway in the already chaotic house brought it back and filled me with the dread of urgency once again.  Trump, as speaker, will never fund the Biden government again; how long can an unfunded government remain in power? Til an election 14 months away?  An election that would almost certainly result in a massacre for those shutting down the government? No, once again, the goal is to force the collapse of the current government by not funding it, by increased rhetoric and for more violence all directed specifically against Trump’s enemies that would lead to a violent overthrow before ‘24.  

What follows is a timeline for the collapse of the German government in ‘33 that was the beginning of my discussion for the planned column.  Following that, I have inserted the immediate measures I thought necessary that I proposed before the ‘22 if the expected red wave had occurred.  Then I conclude with the rest of my previously proposed article on corrective measures I think must be done, not to “preserve” our democracy, but to “develop” a democracy that is truly ours.

In November 1923, Adolph Hitler led a coup attempt against the Bavarian government . It was a complete success, even though it did not succeed.  It brought attention to Hiler and his cause. Hitler ended up behind bars and the court banned the NSDAP. At the end of 1924, Hitler was released after serving a relatively short sentence because Judge Eileen Cannon (oh no, it was a German judge, my mistake) was sympathetic and released him from his long imprisonment . However, his political career was not over. In prison he had written The Art of the Deal (my mistake again) and brought himself into a renewed limelight.  Or maybe not a mistake, the deal was an artful polemic called Mein Kampf, that explained the benefits of placing the government into the hands of those who would be their vengeance.

Economic instability after the end of the first world war had created bank failures and Germans lost their homes  in record numbers.  Of course it was caused by hyperinflation.  Germans literally had to go to the store with a wheelbarrow loaded in marks.  One wheelbarrow full of marks could buy a newspaper to read about a guy named Hitler attacking the Jews.  But one wheelbarrow full of marks could not buy a family a single supper.

Germany 1923

Of course Hitler’s attack on Judaism, was not any more original than Trump’s attack on the invasion of the alien job snatchers; at first all “Mexicans”, who were all invaders even though some might have been descendants we hadn’t removed when we took over half of America away from Mexico, then expanded to Chinese, which really meant all of any Asian descent, even though they may have been descendents of those imported to build American railroads, Mid-easterners, and of course, the worst of all American invaders- blacks who thought that freedom from slavery actually meant they were eligible to become Americans instead of intruders.

Werner Sombart, a socialist German economist had gained a great deal of notoriety and a great deal of criticism about Jewish dominance in the German economy at the turn of the 20th century. Sombart certainly had his critics, but the problem was not that the Jews actually did have  an over-representative share in the German marketplace but that the reason they did extended way back throughout the Christian era.  In order to not overtax its citizens, kings would invite Jewish lenders into their countries, to borrow from.  If their economy began to heal, they would expel the Jews.  And secondarily, following the lead of the church, which also capitalized itself with Jewish money, primarily because Christian lenders were usurious, which was a mortal sin, and the church would excommunicate any who might practice the art of loaning.

Bismarck, in his efforts to unify Germany depended heavily on borrowing from lenders and brought in many Jewish merchants, who then upon unification were well placed to have the capital (and some of their investment was granted to reduce the new government’s debt) as Germany began an earnest attempt to become industrialized. 

At the time of Sombart’s writings, he presented a statistical analysis of salient “facts”:

“In the early twentieth century, a dense corporate network was created among the large German corporations ("Germany Inc."). About 16% of the members of this corporate network were of Jewish background. At the center of the network (big linkers) about 25% were Jewish. The percentage of Jews in the general population was less than 1% in 1914. What comparative advantages did the Jewish minority enjoy that enabled them to succeed in the competition for leading positions in the German economy? Three hypotheses are tested: (1) The Jewish economic elite had a better education compared to the non-Jewish members of the network (human capital). (2) Jewish members had a central position in the corporate network, because many of them were engaged in finance and banking. (3) Jewish members created a network of their own that was separate from the overarching corporate network (social capital). The density of this Jewish network was higher than that of the non-Jewish economic elite (embeddedness). “

But it is not that the statistics themselves are actually erroneous, or false.  What they are is totally misleading, as we mentioned.  The Jewish investment had been important both to the unification process itself and in the initial stages of capitalizing the industrialization efforts that were being introduced, placements on boards enabled the investments, but the Jews  who invested were given no (or very little) corporate control.  And as the capitalists (non-Jewish) began to amass massive amounts of wealth, by the time of Hitler their wealth was significantly less than the protestants who had already begun to edge them out.  Their goal was to edge them out entirely and post-war there was a concerted effort by the industrialists and the Hindenburg government to (once again) purge them entirely from all control.

Werner Sombart saw Jews as the "founders of modern capitalism" and emphasized their "great importance for modern economic life, one that far surpassed all other influences." He argued that the Protestant ethic had been influenced by the Jewish religion and that it would therefore “be more accurate to speak of an elective affinity between the Jewish religion and the spirit of capitalism: …those elements of Puritan dogma that appear to me to be truly important for the development of the capitalism spirit [were] borrowed from ideas within the realm of the Jewish religion.”.  Sombart is also not totally incorrect about the so-called Puritan work-ethic.  As part of the reformation, a large branch of thought (from the Calvinist line, but that’s something of a simplification) did become rather wholesome followers of certain Jewish interpretations in scripture that do lend credence to the idea that the successful (rich) man is rich because of his rightness with God.  Our own puritan founders, notably in the words of John Winthrop, poverty was synonymous with sin, and wealth with righteousness.

And in fact during the hyperinflation the disparity between the wealthy (not-Jewish) and the working poor was growing at enormous rates.   People were unhappy, there is no question about that,  one US dollar equaled one million marks.  (And the U.S. dollar did not have anywhere near the market strength at that time as many other European currencies) And I hate to be the one to tell you this but the Christian “gospels” are radically anti-jewish texts.  If Christ were real, he despised Judaism, but what he despised was their “righteousness”, which he felt hypocritical and unconcerned  about the poor, and their equation of what he perceived their perceived rationale that wealth and power equated with righteousness.   And even though Christianity, post-Augustine, (and largely from a misinterpretation, more than likely deliberate) actually became more old-testament oriented,while the Talmud progressively became more altruistic; or Christianity imparted its own interpretation upon the OT to support the direction that the Church in its supremacy, wanted to utilize to its benefit.

However, it may be, the Jew, wealthy or not, was the centuries long scapegoat, that even the most  low class Christian could feel superior to.  It was their legal right, and for the most part the Jew had no legal recompense.  (See the Merchant of Venice, not only does Shylock not get his pound of flesh, justice gives to his debtor an equivalent pound of Shylock’s flesh in humiliation.) And probably important in the Jewish de-influencing righteous behavior with wealth and power was they lacked power everywhere, minus their having any nation in which they were able to direct the power to their own wealthier classes.

Germany 1932-1933

February 25. Hitler becomes a naturalized German citizen.

May 30.Heinrich Bruning is ousted by a discontented Reichstag that prevents passage of any legislation. Franz von Papen replaces him.The streets are in an uproar, clashes and violence take many lives and people are beginning to be afraid to even go to the store.Culminating on July 17 when 18 lives are lost on Altona Bloody Sunday.

July 31 an election is held.  A negative-majority is created with the two lead parties unable to form a coalition.

August 30, Herman Goring becomes chancellor because Hitler seeks presidency or co-presidency with Hindenburg.  Hindenburg retaliates and refuses the Chancellorship to Hitler  The street riots and violence rampages to an even greater degree.  The government falls again.

November 6. Another election.  The Nazis lose many seats in a red (communist) wave; reduces Nazi plurality amongst fears that the Nazi violence has to be controlled. Kurt von Schleicher is the fourth Chancellor in a year. The Reichstag remains disabled.  

January 30, 1933.  Hitler finally appointed to the chancellorship. 

February 1. Hitler’s Proclamation to the German people more or less declaring an emergency to respond to the street violence (created by the SS, now authorized as the official state police).

February 27. The Reichstag Fire.  Martial law suspending civil rights. New elections announced.  Banning of “controversial” publications.

March 1.  Political opponents and editors of publications that are anti-Nazi arrested.

March 5. The Nazis dominate the national election, but lose big time in Bavaria.

March 8.  Nazis occupy the Bavarian Parliament, expel its members and install a pro-Nazi government.

March 20. Dachau is opened for business and homosexuals who have already been rounded up, get to participate in the opening ceremony by sacrificing their lives.

March 23. The Reichstag passes the Enabling Act to relieve the stress of the German people by appointing Hitler dictator.  31 days later the Gestapo undertakes their official duty to free Germans from all of their stress.  Staff and editors of subversive (anti-Hitler) publications are welcomed to Dachau to be the next round to give up their lives for the good of the Nazis.

Perhaps, if we make it to the election of 2024, the radicals will lose.  If the new government does nothing, don’t count on ‘26.  Of course they want chaos now.  Of course they don’t want a speaker with power to control a legislative agenda.  Of course they don’t want the military to appoint officers loyal to the constitution. Of course violence in the street,  and threats of violence are acceptable.  Of course impeaching elected judges and removing elected officials and restricting voting opportunities and indoctrinating students is acceptable.  Of course none of that is “popular”.

Do you really think the Nazis were popular?  They never could get enough elected  until they fixed the election by arresting other candidates.  And that happened only after they were defeated.

Democracy will not prevail unless it prevails over chaos and makes reforms that really ends the chaos swiftly.

Preventing Government Failure

Step one: Use the mandamus to prevent legislative inaction against violence, if courts don’t (won’t) enforce proper gun control to prevent gun violence, use an executive mandamus to comply.  Announce to America that in order to comply with their second amendment right to possess firearms everyone is permitted to have the type of one-shot rifles and muskets available at the time of the second amendment.  In order to protect all citizens, though, tell the American people it is the duty of the president to protect all American citizens and no personal weaponry invented post 1789 is permissible.

Step two:  In order to enable congress to do its duty and pass a budget—which is the prime constitutional duty of the house of representatives, if  a consensual budget cannot be presented and signed within 15 days, the executive will take control of the budget and congress will be suspended until a new special national election  can be arranged (in no more than 45 days is Ken Taylor’s suggestion.)  Any candidate in the new election cannot qualify for the new election and will be removed from the ballot if they espouse rhetorical threats against other candidates or any government institution.  (Even better, declare that as part of the new election process, one cannot mention other candidates, and can only speak of their own accomplishments, or their own proposals for the future.) 

Step 3.  Do not abridge the freedom of opinion within the press.  But prosecute the press and bring it immediately to a qualified legal audit that is not meant to censor beforehand, but can deny license to any future  press or podcaster rights to anyone who promotes violence.

Step 4.  Voting in the special election must be opened to every citizen registered or not who is at least eighteen years of age.

Crafting a Democracy That Fulfills the Concept

Because the end itself  can be swift.  I fear we have passed the rubicon of opportunity, but there may be one more chance.  If it occurs, then the old-boy way of political parties, limited representation, and the ideas of undefined candidolgy supported  by dark money-or any money.

Ten years between Munich and dictatorship. Fourteen years since the ‘08 crash that bailed out the banks and created the tea-magas. But two years to destroy the government.  We’ve had not quite  three.  Do you really think we’ll have more than that?

The final descent will be very rapid and if the next election gives the government the opportunity, then that new government has to move in a few months, to reform elections, replace some justices in our courts, control weapons, establish abortion rights, break up corporations, create income parities and eliminate those who threaten.  It has to heal what has been broken, but it must do so with great diligence.  It doesn’t have to become “smaller”, but it has to reemphasize community control.  Units of government under the government at the very least need to be localized and cities need to decentralize control to communities within them.  Voting maps at the very least should use the Michigan redistricting plan or a direct geographical apportionment.

The government needs the guts to abolish party affiliations enabling elected officials to work by developing coalitions of interests rather than by allegiance to a party.  And for God’s sake, in no one’s imagination can the house speaker not be elected.  Perhaps, like the president of the senate, it should become an actual elected position by voters, and votes only to break ties.  But he simply cannot be someone that has not been selected in some way by people to be representative of them.

Businesses need to be monitored through law not regulation, and violations need to be punished in jail with the companies’ assets auctioned to communities.  There must be, at the very least, a national union that can bargain for national rights of all workers, including mid-level white collar workers and farmer’s market share.  A national union must be supported by a labor board that can decide labor disputes.  That is an authority the government already has, because the one authority the federal government has over all state governments is the supreme right over all (interstate) commerce. That was exactly the function the NLRB first was legislated to do. Of course all rich are not equal in their oppression.  We all know some of the bad guys.  We seldom hear about any of the good guys.  Let’s just work for a balance in opportunity and make any type of claims to superiority unsupported in what we teach. And make illegal business practices of any kind felonious.

Education should become real–it should become not about creating an elite to tell others what is true, but about explaining to people all of the interpretations.  Differing education for those already wealthy should end, from non-university to university level admissions. There should be more exposure at a much younger age to differing types of work, and education should include developing skills and possibly begin paying children to attend, with money in escrow and no parental access.  Professors should become less attached to the university, and with the advent of online schooling, it is certainly possible to have more direct student contact.  

Most importantly free speech must be guaranteed through some levels of civility.  There is no right of free speech to tell another man he is inferior by virtue of his skin color.  Even requiring people to declare a race should not be admitted.  I would sincerely like to make the adjective of any color applied to any individual illegal and cause for defamation.  It is just as unscientific as it is to teach scientific creationism.  All of science is not necessarily “proven”  but evolution is not theoretical but factual.  When two people copulate to bring forth a child it is not bringing forth a clone, but an evolution of a new life different than both parents.  As yet our children are not cloned Dollys.  Some may say I’m stretching the concept of evolution, but the point is there are no separate human rainbowed species; and all humans share generations of similar and diverse genetic information. Some create the differences we need in the human population, and some are absolutely irrelevant to diversity.  The shape of the eye or the color of the skin are just simply completely, scientifically and factually  irrelevant.  

There is simply nothing occurring now that is unprecedented, not even teetering on the brink.  Presidential transfers haven’t always been “peaceable”.  Tildon was put under house arrest until he conceded his delegates.  Adams stormed off in the middle of the night when he sort of lost to Jefferson.  (Actually it was a fix to convince whig delegates to cast their second vote for Gerry instead of Adams and Jefferson still didn’t get enough electoral votes to win and so the house selected him.  If he hadn’t won, though, there is a very strong likelihood there would have been an attempt by Jefferson’s supporters to overthrow Adams, if he’d won again.  And of course, we did have the civil war.  This idea of the great way this democracy has served us—is just about as true as how slavery benefited the black man.  By the second presidency we were in trouble and the idea of the framers of the constitution of governance by factions achieving consensus had been lost to governance by factions in contention for a majority.  Madison was absolutely correct when he wrote that a government of majority is a tyranny over the minority.  Madison suggested that majority government can rule successfully for no more than one hundred and fifty years.  Well we didn’t prove him wrong, we only managed 72 years before the collapse and civil war.  But it has  been 158 years in our second incarnation of attempting majority rule.  And do not try to tell me would willingly have accepted defeat.  He tried to fix the elections by eliminating many voters in border states, but forced Union (name of his opposition party) candidates in other areas as well off ballots. 

I keep hearing people tell us there are “more of us than them.”  That is the exact reason majority government fails—the statement itself proves that since we have the majority, what you, the minority want, is irrelevant, and to the minority that means they are being tyrannized.

 So if America makes it  beyond ‘24, it must immediately reform itself away from the idea of majority-minority parties and rule; and it must attempt at least to bring the differing classes into the government, not just the intellectual and financially elite.

 I’m sorry.  As a person who has been considered inconsequential I have found myself not seeing the amazing wonders and stability of two-party rule as anything but false historical projection.  America has built its government on a precipice that has continually been teetering with collapse, much as Charlie Chaplin’s cabin in the Gold Rush.  

If we survive the chaos we must make all due haste in recognizing that the foundation needs to be solidified.  Not just the political which merely becomes the reflection of the imbalanced approach to education and economics and those efforts must become consensual.  The end result does not have to be Ken Taylor’s end result—that’s the entire point, not my way, not Joe Hill’s way, not Dr. Zeus’s way.  It has to be a consensus of how communities of people want the economic system to be, how the other systems should be, and a consensus of the communities in how the political structure should be.

But the foundation cannot remain on the precipice.  It will fall off the ledge because the occupants are not rushing back and forth to maintain it from falling off the edge.

Well that’s the result of the example of history.  The options for changing history’s direction is up to us—but it should be up to all who participate.

I don’t usually wish to advertise myself to attract readership.  But in this instance, the normal commentary I am hearing and reading seems somewhat unwilling to recognize that the danger is real.  In this instance I would like to request my handful of readers to share this, or at least the idea of the threat to as many as possible, as soon as possible, especially if you are able to share it with voices who are well-respected and well-followed.  It appears there is a smog in the voices who think they are on the right side of history, but there is no right side of history, only winning sides and changing sides.  You, nor they, need share my skepticism of American democracy, but without a little healthy skepticism that recognizes that optimism in a majority might sometimes not pan out.  Please share the danger.  It is not an “existential crisis” which is a fancy term for nothing.  It is as Justice Holmes once wrote (or perhaps it was Brandeis) an “imminent and present danger”.