(How from the beginning white supremacy and class structures was deliberately built into the constitution of the United States) An adaptation of the works of historians Michael Parenti and Howard Zinn) continued…

In the light of the aforementioned, we quickly gain the understanding that the framers of the American constitution weren’t driven by noble motives, or high ideals. This was clearly a case of being motivated by the basest of human instincts, greed and preservation of self. They meant for the central government to be a stronger mechanism as a means of control from the perspective of their business interests and to protect them, the wealthy, against the unruly masses. In essence, the idea behind a constitution was to create a nation to regulate and or control internal conflict post the American Revolution. James Madison actually argued this when the constitution was presented to the original states for ratification. He argued that there is a “natural conflict of factions” between the owners of property and the landed class. He continued that having a big country (the original 13 states) helps control the masses, read the poor people from rising up against the rich and interfering with their continued, even rapacious accumulation of wealth and assets.

Bearing in mind that the inequality differential between the “haves and have nots” today actually mirrors the economic situation of 300-years ago. It’s been estimated by Peter Joseph, founder of the Zeitgeist movement that roughly 85 people own or control 70% of the wealth in America. Post the 2008/09 crash of the global economy, 10 banks own and control 70% of the combined banking assets in the United States. This isn’t surprising if one considers that they were bailed out by the Bush Obama regimes of between 4 to 6 Trillion dollars, in spite of the fact that they were the ones that caused the so-called, “subprime” crisis to begin with. Madison was actually candid about the wealthy’s fear of rebellion by the majority poor people and the need for the 13 original territories, arguing in the ‘Federalists Papers” that it would be easier to contain an uprising in state before it spread all over. Those of you that are enamoured with a representative government must note that whilst it’s better that a monarchy to be sure, it also acts as a “stop valve” for the peoples collective anger over an issue of local importance.Let’s explain that, both the Republicans and the Democratic Party have similar roots and the exact same ideas of how a government should be structures apropos a “representative government.” In a sense Madison argued that should there be a swell of anger from the people, that anger is first directed as the local representatives and by the time it reaches the Federal government the groundswell of anger is largely dissipated. In essence, the different stages of government acts as a filter to keep the majority, read poor people, from the centres of power and influence, effectively neutering the fanciful notion of a government “by the people, for the people.” James Madison in effect intimates in the “Federalists Papers” that the different levels of government guards them (the rich and powerful) against peoples “rage for paper money” or an equal division of property, or “any other wicked object.” This as you can see is an astounding admission of the principles of our forefathers?

To be continued…