Episode 69. February 8, 2021. Reclaiming The Spirit of 1776: Jettisoning Madison’s Constitution in Order to Connect the Declaration to a Nation of Independent Producers in an Entrepreneurial Capitalist Economy.

Podbean audio introduction to Episode 69

Rumble video introduction to Episode 69

Episode 69. February 8, 2021.
Reclaiming The Spirit of 1776: Jettisoning Madison’s Constitution in Order to Connect the Declaration to a Nation of Independent Producers in an Entrepreneurial Capitalist Economy.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network. www.clpnewsnetwork.com.
We begin our advocacy of creating a new constitution with a criticism of the sloppy intellectual offering of The President’s Advisory 1776 Commission, which co-joins and conflates the principles of liberty in the Declaration, with Madison’s class-based, flawed Constitution of 1787.
The writers of the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission continue the historical charade that the two documents are linked.
As an example of a professional historian making this charade, in Property and the Pursuit of Happiness, Edward J. Erler uses the vague phrase “the founders” to refer to both the patriots of 1775, and to the 38 elites who signed Madison’s constitution, in 1787.
Erler’s intent is to show that the American Founders, who signed the Constitution, regarded the Declaration of Independence as “the authoritative source of the principles of the Constitution.”
The two documents, and the two sets of people involved in each event are different, and not connected by philosophy.
Jefferson’s document is not the authoritative source of the principles of Madison’s document.
Jefferson’s document expresses universal natural truths.
Madison’s document is a class-based set of rules designed to place the privileges of the natural aristocracy above the mass of common citizens, in an aristocratic republic.
The original intent of Madison’s document is easily traced from the Annapolis Convention, in 1786, to the Philadelphia convention. The self-selected elites in Philadelphia needed to replace the Articles with a stronger, central government, which protected the elite’s financial interests, and eliminated the paper currency issued by states.
In the elite’s concept of the new republic, the only function of common citizens was to vote every four years on the elites who would represent them.
As do the Marxist today, the natural aristocracy back then, believed that because they possessed “virtue” that they would make better decisions about public affairs than the citizens, themselves.
George Mason correctly identified Madison’s ploy about the virtuous natural aristocracy as a reincarnation of the British advocacy of “virtual representation.”
As Sean Wilentz wrote, in The Rise of American Democracy, in Madison’s constitution,
“The people had no formal voice of their own in government. And, that was exactly how it was supposed to be — for once the electors had chosen their representatives, they ceded power, reserving none for themselves until the next election…The people, as a political entity, existed only on election day.”
After November 3, 2020, the people, as a political entity, ceased to exist, even on election day, because their votes were stolen by the Marxist Democrats.
Madison did not cite Jefferson in his document, and makes no reference to Jefferson’s principles of individual liberty. Madison’s Preamble is a “nominal nothing.”
The sleight of hand of the 1776 Commission to link the Declaration to Madison’s document, is an unfair and deceptive trade practice, intended to mislead citizens that the founding of America occurred in 1787, not 1776.
As long as this historical charade continues, we argue that the fallacious Black Marxists allegation that the founding of America, as a white supremacist nation, is credible because of Madison’s accommodation of slavery.
We tend to agree with the conclusion, but not her logic, of the Vox Marxist writer, Fabiola Cineas, in her article, The Convenience of American Amnesia:
“This special kind of denial keeps America unable to reckon with the sin of white supremacy.”
Professional historians, and so-called conservative constitutional originalist jurists, are in a special kind of denial of Madison’s original intent.
Unless, and until, the writers of the 1776 Report make a clean break between the two documents, the Black Marxist allegation of American white supremacy will continue to be an effective political weapon to advance Marxism.
Madison’s document required him to accommodate and accept slavery, in order to get the document ratified, in a fraudulent and fake ratification process.
Madison made 7 grand compromises on slavery, and the political expediency to get his document ratified has caused endless race and class conflict with the society, including today’s Marxist Democrats charges of racism in the formation of the nation.
The racism of America did not begin in 1619, or in 1776.
The enduring racism of the American government began in 1787, with a document that enshrined “separate and unequal,” not with Jefferson’s 1776 principle of equality, that if all men are equal.
Judicial constitutional originalism, or discerning today, what the signers intended in 1787, would require originalists to interpret the written text of the Constitution in its original intent to protect slavery.
Whereas, if historians jettison Madison’s document, and revert to Jefferson’s document as the foundation of the new constitution, liberty, and not commercial financial interests, would replace the mission of the new constitution.
We advocate creating a new nation, built upon the principles of the Declaration, and jettisoning Madison’s flawed document, which attempted to combine two alien cultures under one centralized government.
That same document, today, continues to corrupt the power of government with the false impression of the Marxist Democrats that two alien cultures, liberty and Marxism, can be combined under a centralized Marxist tyranny.
Our podcast today intends to convince 75 million Trump voters that the path forward, from November 3, 2020, lies in creating a new nation of sovereign states, whose citizens will have an opportunity to vote in a constitutional referendum to join the new nation.
We begin our argument that the Former United States of America (FUSA), ended on November 3, 2020, in a successful coup of Marxist Democrats that overthrew the Constitution’s principles of majority rule and the voluntary allegiance to the rule of law.
In that coup, the written constitution of 1787 was replaced by an unwritten constitution, whose rules benefit the ruling class elites of the Washington kleptocracy.
Biden is not a legitimate President. He is an unelected tyrant, intent on cramming Marxist ideology down the throats of the majority of ordinary, common citizens.
Part of our argument in favor of making a clean break with Madison’s republic is to stop the charade of calling Biden “President.”
Biden is an unelected Marxist tyrant, and conferring the honorific title of President, on him extends credibility and legitimacy to a government, where none is due.
What path Biden, and the Marxist Democrats take, after the citizen state referendums is not our problem.
What happens to the establishment Republican Party and the kleptocracy, after the state referendums, is not our problem.
Our problem is to connect the principles of liberty, in the Declaration, to a new constitution in a democratic republic of states, that creates a commonwealth of independent producers, in an entrepreneurial capitalist economy. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, Principles of Liberty of the Democratic Republic of America, https://bit.ly/3cFQnnf).
The ruins of the FUSA that we seek to rebuild upon, are the principles of the Declaration, and the state sovereignty framework of the Articles of Confederation of 1781, not Madison’s rules of civil procedure of the Constitution of 1787.
This podcast is the audio introduction to a much longer written article, available for free, at www.clpnewsnetwork.com
The sections of the longer article are:
• Section 1. Originalism and Original Intent of Madison’s Class-Based Constitution.
• Section 2. Contemporary Intent: The 1619 Ideology of Marxism.
• Section 3. Linking Jefferson’s Declaration to the Democratic Republic of America.
• Conclusion. The End of the Global Kleptocracy.
Section 1. Originalism and Original Intent of Madison’s Class-Based Constitution.
In his 2017 New Republic article, Created Equal: How the Divide Between Rich and Poor Has Undermined the Constitution, Win McCormack makes a distinction between class-based constitutions and principle-based constitutions.
McCormack uses a passage from James Harrington’s, The Commonwealth of Oceana, to make his distinction.

McCormack writes,
“James Harrington outlined an ideal form of government in The Commonwealth of Oceana, he imagined a country that, like his own, had overthrown its monarch and was now governed by its own people in their common interest. Harrington recognized that it would be hard to divide power equally throughout this new society. In “class warfare” constitutions—those that split power between the nobility and the people—one group inevitably came to dominate the other, “as the people did the nobility in Athens, between the nobility and the people in Rome.” The result was tyranny or anarchy.”
Madison’s constitution is a class-based constitution that attempted to balance commercial ambition against ambition of two financial classes, the tiny minority of wealthy natural aristocracy and majority of common citizens.
We agree with Harrington that Madison’s class war framework ended in an elite kleptocracy of an unelected tyranny.
Angelo Codevilla describes the major flaw of Madion’s framework,
“Ever since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D., the rulers’ dependence on popular assent to expenditures has been the essence of limited government. Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution enshrines that principle. Congressional practice embodied it. Details of bills and expenditures were subject to public hearings and votes in subcommittees, committees, and the floors of both Houses. But beginning in the early 1980s and culminating in 2007, the U.S government abandoned the appropriations process. The principal consequence of the ruling class’ opposition to candidate Trump was to convince itself, and then its followers, that defeating him was so important that it legitimized, indeed dictated, setting aside all laws, and truth itself.”
The term “popular assent” in Madison’s constitution was entirely limited to the electoral vote of common citizens, every 4 years.
Waging socio-political war on the rest of America is what the kleptocracy is all about.
It is not exactly the same type of war against citizens that Madison unleashed to prevent another Shay’s Rebellion (insure domestic tranquility), but the contemporary war waged by the Marxists serves to highlight one of Madison’s flaws of a class-based constitution.
Madison thought that by checking and balancing power in the Federal Government, that the commercial interests in all branches of government would never unify into a single voice of power.
Madison was wrong. His flawed logic was that in large republics, financial interests become too numerous for any single faction to dominate. His flaw was not realizing that financial interests in the large republic did not have to gain monopoly power in each district, they only needed to unite interests in Washington.
All branches of government are united, today, in a common ideology of global Marxism.
There are no checks and balances, today, in Madison’s constitution because all branches of government, and all government employees, embrace the end goal of creating a Marxist nation.
As Codevilla writes,
“The logic of hate and disdain of ordinary Americans is not only what binds the oligarchy together. It is the only substitute it has for any moral-ethical-intellectual point of reference. Donald Trump’s impotent, inglorious reaction to his defeat offered irresistible temptations to the oligarchy’s several sectors to celebrate victory by vying to hurt whoever had supported the president. But permanent war against some 74 million fellow citizens is a foredoomed approach to governing.”
After 1865, it was the unchecked power of commercial financial and industrial interests that gained monopoly power, in Washington, under Madison’s constitution.

As Allen C. Guelzo writes in The Left Side of History,
“After 1865, it was economic power which emerged as the greatest challenge to liberty, and if one can say anything in defense of the Progressives, it should be that they saw this shift all too clearly, even if they mistook the best means for dealing with it.”
Madison did not contemplate that his strategy of placing the natural aristocracy in a permanent superior power to common citizens would lead to the impoverishment of common citizens.
As McCormack wrote,
“The disparity between the working class and its corporate masters was now so pronounced that President Hayes, from his retirement, made an astounding statement. “This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer,” he proclaimed. “It is a government by the corporations, of the corporations, and for the corporations.”
Conservative jurists intent on finding the original intent of Madison’s Constitution would be forced to accommodate the evidence of the unchecked power of the global crony corporate capitalist class, as did President Hayes, and President Eisenhower, 80 years later.
The disconnect between Jefferson’s Declaration and Madison’s constitution is neatly summarized by Garret Epps, a socialist constitutional scholar at Baltimore University, in his book American Epic: Reading the U. S. Constitution.
Epps notes that Jefferson’s right of citizens to abolish the government when it becomes tyrannical, is nowhere found in Madison’s rules.
Epps writes,
“The people’s right to alter or abolish their form of government was, to the American revolutionaries, supposedly absolute. Yet, strangely, neither the people nor the states may even begin the process of amending the Constitution until Congress permits. That body “whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,” may propose an amendment or amendments and send them to the states for ratification.”
Epps is clear on Madison’s intent in the rules of his document.
“The purpose then, in its most plausible reading, is to create a strong, active, national government, one whose benefits will flow directly to the people who created it.”
Epps fails to disclose that the people who created it were 38 self-selected elites of the natural aristocracy, not we the people, but he swerves into the right conclusion that explains the origins of the modern kleptocracy.
The kleptocracy has obtained tyrannical power to direct the benefits of plunder to themselves, without the consent of the governed.
Epps is accurate when he dispels the fiction of “We, the people,” in Madison’s vacuous Preamble.
Epps writes,
“What is meant by “we the people? In no real sense was the original Constitution written by the people. As every American school child learns, the authors were a group of some fifty-five men, distinguished in the new nation by their wealth and prominence, meeting in the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia between May 25 and September 17, 1787. The “United States” already existed as a society and an independent country. In fact, the Convention was held in the eleventh year of lndependence, the sixth since Britain had recognized American freedom as an accomplished fact.”
A more accurate historical reading would have indicated that 75 representatives from the states were initially sent to the Convention, with explicit instructions not to violate the Articles of Confederation.
Only 38 representatives were left by September 17, 1787, to sign the document, the others having left in disgust at what Madison intended.
One delegate signed twice, once for himself, and once for his buddy, who could not be there that day.
George Mason, and delegates from Pennsylvania, refused to sign the document.
One delegate, Alex Hamilton, signed in violation of his instructions from New York, that he was not to sign the document if the other 2 delegates from New York were not present.
The other two New York delegates had already left in disgust.
It is a sham and fraud on the American citizens that the 38 delegates claimed that the document was signed by unanimous consent of the delegates present, omitting the fact that 37 delegates, of the original 75, had already left the Convention.
Epps is accurate and truthful in his criticism of judicial original intent, when he admits that after 40 years of investigation of the Constitution, he still does not know what the heck the document intends.
Epps writes,
“Besides, I don’t know what it means. I can carefully read what it says; and as I do so, I find many parts that have no clear, definite, single meaning. I find no single overarching philosophy, but some hints at underlying ideas. Some of those ideas are self-contradictory, some are profound, some are repulsive. Some seem to relate to other parts; sometimes the parts don’t fit together at all.”
Epps cites the ambiguity of the text on the issue of liberty as an example of why original intent is impossible to discern. He writes,
“There’s an ambiguity here; liberty could be secured against foreign enemies and domestic subversives, or against the new government itself.”
Epps contrasts the current effort by so-called conservative jurists to derive original meaning in the text with another contemporary interpretation of the text, which Epps calls Common-Good Constitutionalism.
Epps notes that,
“common-good constitutionalism is… based on the principles that government helps direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good, and that strong rule in the interest of attaining the common good is entirely legitimate. It is an argument for authoritarian extremism.”
We argue that this second interpretation of the Constitution is in play today, as the Marxist Democrats attempt to mold and shape citizens into a homogenous whole.
Epps is truthful in his analysis that common-good constitutionalism requires the repressive police power of the state to enforce obedience of citizens.
Epps writes,
“A government that tends its people like sheep, remaking their desires and beliefs, has no basis in the Constitution itself. The structure of the Constitution embodies a distrust of “strong rule” so clear that no one with eyes could miss it; I can find no commitment there to “a powerful presidency ruling over a powerful bureaucracy…judges and other officials will enforce respect for the authority of rule and of rulers; respect for the hierarchies needed for society to function; solidarity within and among families, social groups, and workers’ unions, trade associations, and professions; appropriate subsidiarity, or respect for the legitimate roles of public bodies and associations at all levels of government and society; and a candid willingness to “legislate morality.”
In his most recent assessment of Madison’s Constitution, titled, “How Fragile Is Our Democracy?” Epps cites the work of Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Huq, in their book, How to Save a Constitutional Democracy.
Epps approves of their 3 fundamental requirements of Madison’s constitution to function as a representative republic.
Epps quotes them.
“Ginsburg and Huq’s definition is minimalist; they offer three “‘floor’ requirements for a working democracy” These start with free and fair elections to be sure but extend to the liberal rights of speech and association that are necessary for the democratic process; and the stability, predictability, and publicity of a legal regime usually captured in the term rule of law—a quality of special importance when it comes to the machinery of elections. (emphasis added).”
We argue that the 3 minimal requirements of a representative republic no longer exist, under the Biden Democrat Marxist regime.
Our argument is that the Former United States of America (FUSA), ended on November 3, 2020, in a successful coup of Marxist Democrats that overthrew the Constitution’s principles of majority rule and consent of the governed.
In that coup, the written constitution of 1787 was replaced by an unwritten constitution, whose rules benefit the ruling class elites of the Washington kleptocracy.
Our conclusion is that the Marxist Democrats will never voluntarily relinquish power, and that two new constitutions are required to separate the two warring factions, one that connects the new constitution to the principles of liberty in Jefferson’s Declaration, and the other that connects to the 1619 ideology of racism.
Section 2. Contemporary Intent: The 1619 Ideology of Marxism.
The sleight of hand of the 1776 Commission to link the Declaration to Madison’s document, is an unfair and deceptive trade practice, intended to mislead citizens that the founding of America occurred in 1787, not 1776.
As long as this historical charade continues, we argue that the fallacious Democrat Marxists allegation that the founding of America, as a white supremacist nation, is credible because of Madison’s accommodation of slavery.
We tend to agree with the conclusion, but not her logic, of the Vox Marxist writer, Fabiola Cineas, in her article, The Convenience of American Amnesia:
“This special kind of denial keeps America unable to reckon with the sin of white supremacy.”
Ginsberg and Huq, cited above, describe that this post-constitutional regime in America looks like a “competitive authoritarianism.”
They write,
“Competitive authoritarianism,” is a system in which elections of a sort occur, where liberal rights to speech and association are not wholly stifled, and where there is some semblance of the rule of law.” Erosion [of the rule of law] flows through five specific mechanisms. These are:
1) changes in the national constitution to reduce constitutional guarantees;
2) elimination of the interbranch checks among the three branches of government;
3) an embrace of politicized, uncheckable executive power;
4) gradual contraction of the “shared public sphere” open for democratic protest; and
5) elimination of genuine competition among parties and opportunities for peaceful change in government.”

We argue that this scenario of post-constitutionalism looks exactly like the Biden Democrat Marxist regime, after they were successful in their coup.
The Democrat Marxist propagandist went directly for the jugular in their criticism of the 1776 report because the 1776 combined the so-called “founding” of 1776, with the defense of the Constitution of 1787.
The entire logic of the Democrat Marxist propaganda is that the “founding” of America is a racist, white supremacist strategy.
For example,
• Kevin Kruse, writing for MSNBC, opined that “The Trump administration’s thinly-veiled rebuke of ‘The 1619 Project’ is a sloppy, racist mess.”
• Slate declared, “Trump’s ‘1776 Report’ Would Be Funny if It Weren’t so Dangerous.”
• The Daily Beast headlined, “Trump Admin Compares Racial Justice Activists to Slavery Apologists.”
• CNN wailed, “Trump Administration Issues Racist School Curriculum Report on MLK Day.”
• Jeff Sharlet, writing in Vanity Fair, “1776 Report” Is Trump’s Last Gasp of State-Sponsored Hate , writes, “The report, a profane screed that’s likely to become a blueprint for millions of red state and Christian academy children, is a striking example of the kind of bad-faith historical interpretation that runs rampant on the right”.
We make a two-fold argument about the Marxist criticism of the 1776 report.
First, as long as conservative historians continue to conflate Jefferson with Madison, the Marxist allegation of white supremacy will continue to have propaganda force in promoting the semi-constitutional Marxist regime.
Second, the allegation of racism is utterly incompatible with the restoration of the principles of liberty in a constitutional republic.
The ideological differences between Marxists and natural rights conservatives are irreconcilable, and we argue that the only logical solution is a dissolution of the two warring factions into two separate nations.
We are grateful for the honesty of the socialist writer, Conor Friedersdorf, in his Atlantic article, “1776 Honors America’s Diversity in a Way 1619 Does Not,” for pointing out that the Marxist Democrat strategy of alleging racism in the founding is a bastardization of Marxist theory, that conflates class based war, with race-based war.
Friedersdorf cites Gordon Wood to make his point about the false historical allegation of Marxist Democrats. He writes,
“Gordon Wood, a leading scholar of the period, who was irked most by the Times Magazine’s doubling down on the claim that a primary reason American colonists favored independence was to protect slavery. “I don’t know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves,” he wrote. “No colonist expressed alarm that the mother country was out to abolish slavery in 1776.”
In other words, the Democrat Marxist intent is to destroy capitalism, but rather than relying on the Marxist class-based war between capitalist elites, and the working class, the Democrat Marxist logic is that capitalism is based upon racism, in a race-based war between whites and blacks.
The unintended consequence, for the Democrat Marxist, is that by continually invoking racism, the Marxists will precipitate a race-based class consciousness among white Trump voters. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, The Unintended Consequence of the BLM Marxist Allegation of “White Supremacy.” The Citizens Liberty Party News Network, https://bit.ly/3rDRuIr).
We argue that a better idea than trying to resurrect Madison’s flawed document is to start over, in creating a democratic republic of independent producers in an entrepreneurial capitalist economy.
Section 3. Linking Jefferson’s Declaration to the Democratic Republic of America.
It was possible, in 1787, that Madison could have written a principle-based constitution, following the principles of the Declaration, rather than writing a class-based constitution.
Peter Wood, in his American Mind article, “America Isn’t Make-Believe,” notes that the writers of Jefferson’s Declaration used natural law and natural rights philosophy to guide their text.
Wood writes,
“The core assertion of the Declaration, and the basis of the founders’ political thought, is that “all men are created equal.” From the principle of equality, the requirement for consent naturally follows: if all men are equal, then none may by right rule another without his consent…the founders [in 1776] made that principle into their nation’s core assertion. They built on the established idea that civil law and religious law were separate, still protecting religious freedom; they upheld the “rule of law;” they conceived that the role of federal government should be limited to performing those tasks that only a national government can do…When the Declaration was written the [1776 founders] were counting on the power of these new words to help crystalize America’s national identity out of the shared resentments, beliefs, and aspirations of colonists who were not yet formally a nation.”
Rather than using the text of the Declaration as the foundation of his constitution, Madison adopted the model of British mixed government.
Madison’s logic of restoring the British class system of government in America is that the elites realized that it had been their connection with British royalty, prior to the Revolution, that had granted them their privileged status to run their colonies, and to speculate in lands and war bonds.
Madison’s new House of Lords acted as a powerful check against the democratic impulses of the farmers. Nine out of ten Americans made their living on farms, but not one of the delegates to the 1787 convention were farmers.
The natural aristocracy never supported the initial natural rights constitution, the Articles of Confederation, of 1776, and were intent on overthrowing the natural rights republic, as soon as the opportunity presented itself, in 1787.
Gouverneur Morris, an elite from New York, who helped Madison overthrow the Articles of Confederation, wrote, in 1774,
“that the British connection was the guarantee of the existing aristocratic order…after the revolution, they engaged with conservatives in other states in undoing the Articles of Confederation.” (The Articles of Confederation, Merrill Jensen).
The dilemma for Madison in adopting the British mixed government model was that it had no function for the President. The reason Madison’s articles on the President are so weak is that he was trying to substitute a President, where the King was in the British system.
During the 1787 convention, the Founding Federalists thought that the right term for the Chief Executive was king. The issue of what to call the executive was finally resolved when George Washington said it would be more politically acceptable to the non-elites to call him the President.
Rather than the defense of liberty, Madison’s class-based document left liberty out of his system of checks and balances, as if liberty was just another commercial faction.
For Madison, a “more perfect union” meant promoting the special financial interests of the natural aristocracy.
Madison’s original intent has devolved into a single party special interest kleptocracy of corporate globalism, protected and enhanced by the police power of the Federal government.
In Madison’s two party political party arrangement, the Republican Party, today, has morphed into the party of the rich and the well born, and most importantly, virtuous global corporations.
As their Federalist ancestors had been in 1775, and 1787, the Republicans today are engaged in global speculation, and impose disastrous trade policies, mostly with China, that serve to undermine the nation’s sovereignty.
In the first political conflict, after the Constitution’s implementation, between the farmers who were oppressed by taxes, Madison eliminated the possibility of the states issuing paper money, forcing farmers to pay their taxes in gold or silver.
In the second great conflict between wealthy bondholders and tax payers, Madison established justice for the bondholders by eliminating the possibility that the state assemblies would grant “relief” to the tax payers on the payment of interest to the “virtuous” bondholders.
In the current conflict between Marxist Democrats and natural rights conservatives, Madison’s defective document allowed the voting rights of citizens to be eviscerated, with no recourse for the citizens.
Codevilla summarizes where common citizens in America are today, under Madison’s constitution.
“The oligarchy came together by ever more vigorously denigrating and suppressing these deplorables. Already before the 20th century’s turn, the FBI and some elements in the Army and the Justice Department had concluded that they are somehow criminal, and that preparations should be made to treat them as such. The official position of the administration taking power after the 2020 election is that domestic terrorism from legions of “white supremacists” is the primary threat facing America. No wonder those so designated for outlawry demand protection.”
But, Madison’s constitution does not provide protection for the liberty of Trump voter’s because Madison’s constitution is a class-based document, not a principle-based constitution.
Garret Epps explains how Madison’s constitution evolved from race-based repression against Black people, to race-based repression against Trump voters.
Epps writes in his article, “The Constitution: A Love Story,” of the earlier era of Black repression in the 1950’s, when he was a boy.
“The heart of the system was not enforced separation of the races but systematic, violent subordination of one to the other. Black citizens in the South were excluded from public life; they were denied the vote; they held no offices; they were given only limited access to the courts; they were economically exploited by whites under the color of law. Official violence maintained white supremacy, and if that failed, extralegal violence was also waiting-and law enforcement often made no effort to stop violence and even murder when it was directed against black people… No one, white or black, was allowed to question the “system”; those who did ran enormous risks. Dissent- white or black-could mean social ostracism, economic ruin, or physical danger. As in any dictatorship, the education I received at my segregated school was systematically shaped to reinforce the official racist ideology.
To paraphrase Epps, in order to apply his analysis to the Democrat Marxists today,
“The heart of the Democrat Marxist regime is systematic, violent subordination of Trump voters. Trump voters are excluded from public life, they are denied the vote, and not given access to the courts for redress of grievances. Official violence against the White supremacist Trump voters is sanctioned, and if official violence fails, extra-legal violence by BLM and antifa is sanctioned… As in any dictatorship, the education in school was systematically shaped to reinforce the official Marxist ideology.”
Madison’s constitution allows both types of repression, against Blacks in the 1950’s and White Trump voters today, to occur because Madison’s constitution was not connected to the principles of liberty in the Declaration.
We believe that the original American patriots, in 1775, had the best idea for creating a natural rights democratic republic for the new nation.
Their radical idea was to create a democratic republic of equal economic opportunity and equal political rights for all citizens.
Their philosophy of individual liberty was derived from the writings of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, actualized by the writing of Thomas Jefferson.
The Articles were ratified by the 13 states, in 1781. The patriots created a decentralized form of government that granted authority to each state to manage its own internal affairs, with delegated power to the central government to manage national defense and foreign affairs.
We advocate the restoration of the philosophy of a natural rights republic of individual liberty, built upon the state sovereignty framework of the original American patriots.
The original patriots adopted the motto “Spirit of ‘76,” to describe their goal in the war with England, and we adopt this motto with the modification “Spirit of Individual Liberty” to emphasize our belief in the virtue of a society built upon individual freedom and individual initiative.
We advocate a national economic policy of economic sovereignty, based upon the concept of entrepreneurial capitalism. We believe that the Nation’s initial factor endowment of individual creativity created an unassailable global comparative advantage in technological innovation and new venture creation.
We call this initial factor endowment advantage a “commonwealth of independent producers.”
The primary national domestic economic goal is a high annual rate of private capital investment in technology and new small entrepreneurial firms, decentralized to the major metropolitan regions of the states.
We agree with Jefferson, that the purpose of the Nation is to secure the individual liberty of citizens from outside and inside threats, and that the main beneficiaries of the defense of individual liberty are the working class and middle class citizens who aspire to achieve economic and financial prosperity.
We believe that these national sovereignty goals are threatened by a concentration of centralized political and economic power that is not connected to Jefferson’s goal that all legitimate power is derived from the consent of the citizens.
We allege that there is a ruling class of families and corporations intent on subverting national economic sovereignty to the goal of a seamless, global economy, controlled by unelected elites.
We call this form of illegitimate authority a deep state kleptocracy, managed by a global crony capitalist elite, who use the agencies of government to direct the flow of financial benefits to themselves.
The deep state kleptocracy manages its political affairs through the institutional organization of the Republican Party, in collusion with the national Marxist Democrat Party.
We cite the main threat to individual liberty today as the alliance between crony capitalists and socialists, who promote a global one-world government.
We believe that the ideological differences between natural rights conservatives and Democrat socialists are irreconcilable, and we advocate a peaceful civil dissolution of the nation.
We advocate the creation of a new nation, called the Democratic Republic of America, where citizens have greater power to protect their own natural and civil rights, than the weak form of protection under Madison’s representative republic.
Conclusion. The End of the Global Kleptocracy.
The current government of the Biden kleptocracy is stable under two conditions:
First, as long as American consumers continue to gobble down cheap Chinese goods, the alliance between the Chinese communists and American global corporate crony capitalists will be stable.
Second, as long as the Trump voters remain under the police state repression as “domestic terrorists” the Trump voters will not revolt to upset the kleptocracy status quo.
Christopher Buskirk, in his recent article, To Save the American Way, Build Anew, gets at part of the story of the stability of the kleptocracy when he cites the economic fact that the American economy, after 1994, turned into a very unbalanced, consumer-driven economy.
Buskirk promotes the idea of protecting this “American Way of Life” as the goal of replacing the kleptocracy.
Buskirk writes,
“It turned us from a nation of citizens mutually dependent upon one another to a society of consumers whose highest goal is to maximize their utility.”
The “it” Buskirk is referring to is the arrival of the oligarchy, which evolved into the Biden kleptocracy.
We disagree with the goal of preserving the American way of life that Buskirk advocates.
The better goal is to preserve liberty.
Following Marxian logic, the Biden kleptocracy has a number of internal logical contradictions that will limit its tenure.
First, the American economy has already transitioned into a type of “rentier” economy where 70% of all jobs, and 80% of all GDP is dependent upon the 6 service industry sectors.
Only 20% of all GDP is linked to global trade in the financial and industrial sectors.
As the kleptocracy tightens its grip on obtaining the benefits of global trade, there will be less and less income mulitpliers to sustain the 6 service sectors.
From a financial and economic welfare perspective, the internal contradiction of the kleptocracy is that it leads to the immiseration and impoverishment of middle and working class citizens.
We agree with Marx that the eventual outcome of this global capitalist immiseration is a class-based revolution of the middle class against the global crony capitalist class.
In addition to the over-dependence on global trade, Biden’s global kleptocracy is vulnerable to the destruction of value of the U. S. dollar, from government long-term debt. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, U.S. National COVID Economic Collapse and the Collapse of the U.S. Dollar (April 14, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3575761).
We advocate a different type of economy, based upon technology innovation and high rates of private capital investment in new ventures. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, The U. S. COVID Economic Recovery Plan (May 18, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3604591).
Getting to that new economy would mean replacing Madison’s defective class-based constitution with a new principle-based constitution that protects individual liberty.
And, getting to that new constitution would mean that the historians who wrote the 1776 report stop co-joining and conflating Madison and Jefferson, so that Trump voters can better appreciate why the Declaration is a better foundation for a new constitution than Madison’s class-based British mixed model.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network. www.clpnewsnetwork.com