Excellent article. And the key reform that would solve at least half of these problems at once would be a radical rethink of intellectual property rights. ABOLISHING PATENTS AND IPR would reduce the power of corporate monopolies and the obscene concentration of wealth to the 0.000000001% of media celebrities. The argument in favor of patents and IPR is that it is necessary to pay for innovation and the creation of arts. But just listen to the strong narrative in the tech-utopian community. They all talk about The Singularity. That the speed of technological innovation is accelerating exponentially and that we very soon will enter a phase where this speed is incomprehensibly fast. If this speed will be somewhat slower is not in any way a bad thing if the benefit is that new innovations will immediately be availible to the entire planet, including the poor. And not just the corporate monopolies and the Silicon Valley billionaires.

The argument that IPR is the only way to pay for musicians and writers is weak. Mega corporate monopolies are reaping most of the benefits from IPR and the actual creators only get a pittance. Just ask any writer how much they get from an eBook sold at Amazon.

And the PR spin that medical patents are needed to give us new drugs is equally moot. All major medical discoveries have been financed by government money. It is only after a discovery that Big Pharma enters with expensive clinical trials - and claim it is their innovation and they have to be paid for it. Government funded medical research is a hidden subsidy of Big Pharma.

The key part of FDR's thinking is the word "monopolistic." Technically, there are very few true monopolies around. But what we have are a lot of monopolistic practices. Business owners who desire to lock in their advantage don't necessarily conspire explicitly in those practices. All they need to do is have an understanding that is virtually nonverbal. When the Koch brothers have their big meetings, it can be very easy for businessmen to have talks on the side that imply what they need, though nothing said would actually be actionable. Nevertheless, there are ways to push against monopolistic practices.

FDR was not a full socialist, though he leaned somewhat in that direction, but he believed the government needed to play a strong role. His conception was a partnership of businesses, government AND workers. He also believed in new technology but sometimes no one knew for sure which technology was the best. In peacetime, this is a trickier issue (though not really). In war, it was easy for FDR to simply say: try both methods and see what happens; if one quickly becomes more viable then we'll focus on that.

I realize many people on Truthout have issues with Obama, but when it comes to global warming, he has borrowed some of FDR's thinking. He has found multiple ways of investing in alternative energy when it hasn't been certain what will work. One of the ironies is that energy costs for solar and wind have fallen dramatically despite the claims of conservatives. Nothing breaks the logjam of monopolistic behavior better than encouraging real competition, while creating new jobs. By the way, this doesn't work unless the government is also investing in university and government research, something conservatives adamantly oppose, partly because of the costs but also partly because they find it harder to control the patents. This is one reason conservatives are trying to stuff the boards of key universities.

Excellent points in this article, and I'm happy to read optimism between the lines as opposed to hand-wringing. It's useful to consider the future in view of the past. The contemporary onslaught of useless information - "content" - erases the lessons of history at an ever accelerating pace. The valuable lessons of progressive politics & policies may be buried, but they're not dead. Those who may have read Polanyi's The Great Transformation will be aware that Society will inevitably revolt against being devoured by Economy.

What we're suffering from is a complete lack of ethics in our economic relations. We've accepted in our own minds (We The People, not just the plutocrats) the corporate bottom line of profit and capitalism's commodification of the human being. Like an outdated model of a cell phone, "unproductive" people become superfluous and are to be discarded in one way or another.

Yet in our social relations, humanity has made great strides and is still making them with the recent liberation and acceptance of the diversity of human sexuality. Surely more progress remains to be made in this area, but significant steps have been taken, and we're headed in the right direction.

Our great challenge is to make our economic relations as moral as our social relations. This may entail, ironically, taking Citizens United seriously, but not in the way that the Supreme Court intended. If corporations are "persons" (and they are certainly composed of persons), then they should have moral obligations to fulfill as they operate economically.

Once the idea of ethics and moral progress in economic relations, similar to that in social relations, becomes understood and demanded by the public, the seed will be sown for humane development in how we provide for our material needs, similar to what we've accomplished in meeting our social needs.

The United States of America must lead a revolution of thought. Here are substantive issues most fail to discuss, but they are essential to finding sustainable solutions:

First, all issues present themselves as a result of one generation passing on (or not passing on) that which the next generation needs to make a better world for themselves and their children.

Second, the Agreement among We the People is not the US Constitution. The Constitution is merely a charter of government granted by We the People.

Third, the sole agreement among We the People of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence.

Fourth, such Agreement among We the People forms a joint venture sovereign, not individual sovereigns.

Fifth, pursuant to such joint venture, each member pledges each of their lives, fortunes and sacred honor in support and protection of human rights.

Sixth, all assets comprising American capitalist ventures are likewise pledged to the same end – identifying, protecting and fulfilling human rights.

Thus the only form of capitalism authorized in the United States of America is “human rights capitalism” (not the newly articulated “free market” capitalism which has not served Americans well).

Agreement among We the People examines this as part of the Human Rights Capitalism Series.

Here is an interesting and yet surprising fact: Bernie Sanders’ platform and views (as well as those of Pope Francis) are more in line with the founders’ of the United States of America than those of any other 2016 candidate for President of the United States of America.

Although we understand why Sanders might describe himself as a “democratic socialist” for political contrasting purposes, he is hardly a socialist. If Sanders is a socialist, then so too are the founders of the United States of America.

They (including Sanders, Pope Francis, and America’s founders) are “human rights capitalists”. See: Agreement among We the People by John F Halbleib. Sanders received a free, complimentary copy in 2015 (the year in which the book was first published).

Reviews of Agreement among We the People (as a volume of the Human Rights Capitalism series) by political science academia and other thought leaders have been very favorable. Here are some of their comments: Human Rights Capitalism “is a masterpiece”; Human Rights Capitalism “is brilliant”; “Your work struck me as a new and significant”; “From one scholar to another — this is important stuff!”.

You may or may not have good ideas. But using the old top-down hierarchy structures to assert these ideas will not work. Everyone must be involved in the decision making processes. So your ideas should be considered as starting points for discussion, and not ending points for implementation.

You said:
"Second, the Agreement among We the People is not the US Constitution.
The Constitution is merely a charter of government granted by We the
People.
Third, the sole agreement among We the People of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence."

These two claims are similar. We the People in verifiable consensus are the sovereignty, not the US Government and not any individual who may incorrectly claim individual sovereignty. Not even the Constitution or any US law supersedes the sovereignty of We the People in verifiable consensus.

The Constitution was ratified by the people, and not by the separate states, so it is an official agreement among the people. The Declaration of Independence was never formally ratified, plus it was never meant to become a law. It became an informal agreement by consent, and not by verifiable consensus.

I never think of the Declaration as something that needed ratification or as an agreement except in the sense that it was agreed upon by the 2nd Continental Congress as notice to the British Crown that the people of the United States were asserting their freedom from its rule. Think of it more like a "Dear George letter," and thus a completely different kind of document from the U.S. Constitution.

Yep, kind of a "not-love" letter.

Beardian analysis of the Constitution disputes your claim as to who ratified the US Constitution. Beard's analysis was recently confirmed by another scholar.

The Constitution is a charter of government, plain and simple.

The Declaration of Independence is the sole agreement among We the People and it was ratified by those who did so by remaining in the United State (and not returning to country of origin, fleeing to Canada or moving to the wilderness), fighting in the American Revolutionary War, financing the same war, etc. George Washington and other founders used is as an offering circular of sort soliciting membership in We the People (as contrasted with remaining a British subject). Washington added Thomas Paine as part of his staff to write more in support of the Declaration of Independence, which was routinely read to soldiers before going into battles.

It was ratified in blood, human sacrifice, financial support, and etc. Each of these is clearly ratification!

Your empty reference to Beardian analysis is not helpful unless you are willing to support what your intended meaning might be in that regard.

Beard did research in the early 20th Century and then published a book regarding the specifics of who ratified the US Constitutions. From Agreement among We the People at pp 31-32:

"Let’s examine how the formation of Our Federal government resembles the challenges reported by Gilens and Page. (Gilens & Page, 2014) The Constitution of the United States forms Our Federal government and it is not the Agreement among We, the People. Rather, it is the charter of Our Federal government granted by Our sovereign, We the People of the United States of America. As such, the Constitution is subordinate (or subject) to Our Agreement, which is the sole agreement among the sovereign people of the United States of America.

Moreover, as Professor and historian Charles A. Beard wrote in 1913, “The Constitution was not created by “the whole people” . . .; neither was it created by “the states” . . . ; but it was the work of a consolidated group whose interests knew no state boundaries and were truly national in their scope.” Instead, Beard concludes “The movement for the Constitution of the United States was originated and carried through principally by four groups of personalty interests which had been adversely affected under the Articles of Confederation: money, public securities, manufactures, and trade and shipping.” (Beard C. A., 1921) (Becker, 1907 (Thesis), 1909 (Published)) During Beard’s lifetime, his research was considered mainstream history and it was regarded with the highest level of respect.

After Beard died, some have tried to undermine Beard’s early 20th Century research. However, a recent study published in 2003 confirms Beard’s original conclusions. In 2003, Robert A. McGuire published his "A New Economic Interpretation of the United States Constitution". McGuire utilized sophisticated statistical analysis through which McGuire delivered further proof of Beard's basic thesis regarding the impact of economic interests in the making of the Constitution. (McGuire, 2003) (Beard, 1921) (Becker, 1907 (Thesis), 1909 (Published)) McGuire writes “The findings of this study support a modern, new economic interpretation of the Constitution. As such, the findings offer support in a broad sense for a ‘Beardian’ view of the founders . . . [. . . .] [T]hey . . . indicate a role in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution for many of the specific economic interests of concern to Charles A. Beard in 1913.” (McGuire, 2003, p. 211) "

There is more about the Beard and McGuire studies, as well as other recent scholarly studies in Agreement among We the People

The authors of the Declaration announced themselves as Representatives of the States rather than of the People.

In turn, the signatories of the Articles of Confederation, which is where the Country was created, announced themselves as Delegates from the States, rather than from the People.

But the signatories of the Constitution took pains to announce themselves as of the People directly, rather than of the States. Which established that it was not the States which created the Constitution, but the People directly.

On the other hand, at the moment the Constitution was created, and although the People had already been bound into the "contract agreement" of the AOC via their States, the People still retained the ultimate sovereignty and authority to modify the AOC almost entirely by creating the charter of the Constitution directly, not through the States; a charter as any sovereign would have done.

Said another way, the People were already contracted together by agreement, and had been so for a decade, when the charter of the Constitution was issued in their name. A second "Agreement" would have been redundant.

But, yes of course the driving factor in forming the USA was economics, while the idealism helped make it happen. Neither would have carried the day without the other. Neither idealism nor the economy had developed enough by themselves to be the sole actor.

The Declaration of Independence established We the People as the sovereign: "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Nice filler. Did you type that out or copy and paste? You're speaking of the two documents as if one were written on Friday evening and the other hammered out over the weekend while the first was still fresh in the minds of the framers. Is there any evidence that Madison had a copy of the Declaration in his back pocket when he wrote the first draft?

Madison was not on the Committee of Five.

Sorry, it did no such thing. The Declaration was:
A.) a statement of political separation of the now allied " Colonie-*S*" from Britain, now also claiming a "Right to be free and independent State-*S*," and,
B.) a statement of uniting (lower case 'u') in an alliance of "free and independent State-*S* " against Britain, and,
C.) an assertion of "full Power to levy War" as "independent State-*S*, but now pledged in alliance.

What they did not do is describe themselves as a single Country, which they had not yet formed.

And in establishing these statements, the signatories described themselves as:
I.) "representatives of the State*S*" but "in the name of the good people of these Colonie*S*"and,
2.) asserted the independence of the Colonies, rather than the People, and,
3.) that these Colonies were now independent States, and that,
4.)these new States (rather than the People) are now absolved of allegiance to the Crown and all political connection with the State of Great Britain, and ,
5.) asserting that the new States, rather than the People, have the Power to Levy War, etc.

Ar the end of that day, they proclaimed themselves to be a group of individual States, nut allied against another State: Britain.

At no time did they proclaim or even chat about the sovereignty of their population.

Not that the People had not acquired sovereignty; they in fact did. But only by default. Once they had rejected the sovereign rule of George III, sovereignty had to fall SOMEWHERE, and since they had never bestowed sovereignty on the Governors of their new States, it was left with the People.

Point is, Beard was correct re the sovereignty of the People, but not because the Declaration asserted it to be so. It happened by default.

The history of the sovereignty of the people is documented in Agreement among We the People, as well as all parallel issues. This means of exchanging ideas does not lend itself to a full and detailed analysis. Moreover, I trust your hold your beliefs with a passion such that further exchange might prove pointless. If you decide to challenge your thoughts, let me know and I would be pleased to send you a free complimentary copy of the book.

I will add this one additional thought, once the authority of the Crown was rejected, all States were dissolved (other than Virginia) - because they existed pursuant to Charters of Government from the Crown. Once they dissolved their relationship with the sovereign of Great Britain, their respective charters ended as well. Thus, each State then received its charter of government from - that is right - the people within the various geographic territories previously known as Colonies. But this occurred (excluding only Virginia) after the Declaration of Independence formed We the People. Each group of We the People then formed State governments by charters of government. Other than the argument that Virginia existed as a new State coincident with the Declaration of Independence, all other Colonies ended and there were no States as we know them today.

"
Yes, we agree that rejection of the Crown carried with it the rejection of the charters from that Crown. In fact all of the governing offices of the Colonies were cancelled, and the officers holding them, being servants of the Monarch, were entirely disenfranchised and out of a job.

Sovereignty had devolved upon the People by the very fact that at this exact time, there was no supreme power over them, as per the dictionary definition of sovereignty.

And yes, this happened because of the Declaration, but, I say again, by default. There was no intentional statement to this effect in the Declaration, claiming the sovereignty of the People.

The Declaration "formed" nothing intentionally but an an alliance, a military alliance, between the Colonies. In fact the expression "We the People" was not even used until eleven years later, after the War.

After the Declaration, when the now "stateless" but sovereign People in the former Colonies immediately proceeded to form themselves into brand-new, independent-but-separate States by adopting Constitutions, they did so as sovereigns granting Charters, as you have said.

Thanks for the offer of a copy of the book, but it would be a waste since you and I are not really that far apart on our history of sovereignty or its effect.

BTW, what was your reference to "the argument that Virginia existed as a new State coincident with the Declaration of Independence?"

"deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed" Under British law and international law as it then existed, governments were chartered by the sovereign. Thus, "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed"

If the colonies did not exist, then there were no governments other than Virginia. After all sovereignty resided in We the People, the States were formed one by one by their portion of We the People. Moreover, there were extensive boundary disputes throughout the Colonies, which needed to be resolved. This is easier to see if one follows a timeline for each Colony as it transitioned into a State.

The Constitution of Virginia was first adopted on June 29, 1776 and it was the only Colony that had done so through the power of its people and coincident with the execution of the Declaration of Independence.

Yes, under British Law at the time, governments were chartered by the Sovereign King. It is the charter itself that establishes the government, not "the governed". If the charter allows such things as a legislature or a Governor, fine, but these things were not initiated solely under the will of the People. Far from it. And under a Charter from a Monarch, the Consent of the Governed was entirely secondary. Despite the Magna Carta, the British King still had a great deal of power at that time.

The fact that the Colonies were not granted "the Consent of the Governed" is what caused the war.

That's correct: After the signing of the Declaration, for a short time "there were no [remaining legitimate] Governments in the [former] Colonies, other than Virginia."

This situation was almost immediately rectified by the prompt adoption of a Constitution by the People in each Colony. Of course the former Colonies had need to make it stick, either by treaty with Britain, or by force of arms.

When one focuses on "each Colony", a great deal of the challenge at that time is lost. For our founders, they had a very practical challenge. How does a new sovereign of We the People gain membership against the then most powerful country in the World? Many Colonists (particularly members of "peace churches" and others) moved to Canada, returned to their Country of origin or moved into the wilderness. Inasmuch as the newly established sovereign was comprised of individuals whose consent was required in order to be governed, our founders deployed intricate and persistent marketing campaigns to gain membership. The Declaration of Independence was utilized to make clear that which members of We the People were going to receive in exchange for becoming members. Thomas Paine was added to Washington's military staff to facilitate this communication, and while part of Washington's military staff, Paine wrote additional pieces which served the same purpose - to induce Colonists to join We the People.

I happen to agree with your contentions regarding Charles Beard and the Constitution. It was not only corroborated by McGuire in his 2005 study but also by Lundberg in 1980. All three (I have all of their books in my library), from my understanding, saw the creation of the Constitution as an economic document to protect the American Aristocracy, which is why the government is as ineffective as it is; to prevent radical change that could effect such interests.

However, as it regards the essay provided, none of the solutions offered can possibly work due to a complete imbalance from a military analytical point of view. This states that a highly cohesive force (the US elites) cannot possibly be defeated by an incohesive force, the US population. The use of 1930s populism as an example of such success is a very poor historical foundation to base the creation of large-scale support among the current US citizenry.

A classic example of this imbalance was Alexander's defeat of the Persians at Arbella (around 323 BC). Though the Persians were numerically superior and their individual units were even well trained in many instances, they were defeated summarily for the lack of cohesion their forces exhibited during the battle. It is the same with the US citizenry; they have no focus despite the many "progressive" organizations that abound in this country.

As it regards FDR, the issue that moved him to create the "New Deal" was hardly a sense of altruism but his understanding that an armed revolution would most likely occur if he did nothing. And such an upheaval was primarily led by US WWI veterans who were lefty destitute after WWI but still had a sense of cohesion among themselves that the rest of the citizenry lacked.

FDR was also no saint and to promote him as some type of egalitarian as president is not only a false perception of him but is factually inaccurate. FDR had little interest in helping the nation as a whole but was more interested in saving Capitalism from itself. Thus the "New Deal" (actually I believe there were two such designs), was a minimalist approach to solving the issues at hand.

True, he made have had some sound intentions but they were all oriented to saving the US' capitalistic infrastructure, not boosting the welfare of the people, which was merely a result of his policies and was needed to offset the rapacious destruction that US capitalism had wrought.

And by what method could FDR have "boosted the welfare of the people" without "saving the U.S. capitalistic infrastructure" as well.

In the context of the times, those times specifically, they were not conflicting goals.

Quoting one person and making declaratory statements do not make your comment true. You are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
By the way, exclamation points do not make your argument more credible either.

Kevin, I agree. That is why there is an entire series of books supporting that which I have said. The series is the Human Rights Capitalism Series, of which Agreement among We the People is the second book.

There is also a whole series of books confirming the existence of wizards. Something to do with a Hairy Porter or something.

The Harry Potter series is fiction (and it classifies itself as such). The Human Rights Capitalism Series is based upon facts from before 1606 (Jamestown) through modern times. You should feel free to form your own views, but please consider reviewing the underlying facts.

Julian Assange exposes the harbinger of a massive plot that can be stopped. His book chapter titled, "Google is Not What It Seems To Be", shows the implications of wealth-dictated policy. (The chapter is available for free, on-line). In about the 30th paragraph, he describes an organization, Gen Next Foundation. It is linked to "The Seventy Four" , a Walton Foundation-funded organization working to privatize public schools. The spokesperson is Campbell Brown,
Tell your state legislators you won't accept Silicon Valley's Common Core $$ nor, their hedge-fund backed charter schools (privatization).

Worker cooperatives are the best replacement for capitalism.

We don't have to replace capitalism. Keeps its good aspects and control its exploitive aspects. then we will have a good blend.

Mondragon has proven that fact since 1956

The following is from Wikipedia on Mondragon:
"The determining factor in the creation of the Mondragón system was the arrival in 1941 of a young Catholic priest, José María Arizmendiarrieta, in Mondragón, a town with a population of 7,000 that had not yet recovered from the Spanish Civil War: poverty, hunger, exile, and tension.[3] In 1943, Arizmendiarrieta established a technical college that became a training ground for generations of managers, engineers, and skilled labour for local companies, and primarily for the co-operatives.[4]

Before creating the first co-operative, Arizmendiarrieta spent a number of years educating young people about a form of humanism based on solidarity and participation, in harmony with Catholic social teaching, and the importance of acquiring the necessary technical knowledge."
Admirable!---I should have KNOWN it would have to based on altruism as taught by Jesus. But HOW are we going to get the US population to become thusly altruistic???

IOW, "How ya' gonna keep 'em down on the farm after they got moneeee?"

AGW and disastrous climate change ought to do it for the survivors...

Do what? You mean disastrous climate change might make Americans more altruistic?
I hope that is not the only thing that will make Americans begin to work together. But first they have to get rid of the prostitutes in Congress.
All Congresspersons care about is themselves, how to get and keep power--no matter how much they turn their backs on the people who elected them in favor of whoever will keep them in power. It's sick!--really SICK.
What does it take to get Americans to wake up to the fact that they are being "taken" by a bunch of prostitutes in Congress??? Are we complete fools???
The approval of Congresspersons in the USA is all the way down to 10%. If so--why the hell isn't there some kind of revolt against these b-stards??? Are Americans such pansies that nothing will get them to revolt? Just refuse to vote Dem or Repub. Vote for some third party candidate--or for Bernie or Trump. That message will break up the Old Boy club in Congress,

Oh, and don't blame "Americans" too much...

The "electoral system" is a completely undemocratic, cash-riddled faux-horse race owned, funded and managed by a small minority of the Owner Class and their willing sycophants...

Most "Americans" don't get much of a choice of candidates that can "win" in the rigged game...

Although, Bernie and Trump are symptoms that the system may be crumbling under the weight of the backlash of the 99%...

I certainly hope that's true, but I caution all the young firebrands to be patient. Revolutions don't take place overnight, and a third party probably won't be the vehicle for change. The two-party system here is way too entrenched; just ask the Libertarians and the Greens. Better to join one of the two existing parties in sufficient numbers to transform it. Bernie's given this a great jump-start, and though I probably won't live to see it come to any kind of fruition, it would give me a lot of comfort to see things continuing in that direction.

I was just presenting the possible (probable?) worst case scenario...

Well, nearly worst case. Species extinction of Homo Sapiens (and other large air-breathers) is more likely if we don't change our ways soon...

The first premise that less farmers is because of technology is only true if technology was used to throw Citizens off the farms. We all know the term monopoly and that a small group of people hold that as Capitalism. Remove the ability to print money and remove the casino of wall street and remove the tax dodges and end the wars and then install the Constitution and the bill of rights as the course you intend.

The warmongering idiot and Neocon toady, John Kerry, says we will have a borderless world. Yes, it will be borderless. And it will be full of unconsciously breeding disposable labor, cannon fodder, and indebted consumers with no rational, effective representative government to control the avarice, nihilism, and violence of the hordes Kerry would unleash. (For proof, see human history and human nature and the global corporate fascist elites who have, already, deeply degraded America, all pals of Kerry). There will be endless streams of racist and religious messianic grotesques flowing into America to proselytize race and religious xenophobia, kill, rob, and rape and suck the life out of what is left of our precious environment, American culture, and every institution we've created, all on behalf of the insane, global fascist filth whom Kerry serves. Like Obama and Clinton and all the criminal Neocons, the Fed Cartel banksters and high elites, Kerry is crazy. (See: the fall of Rome, The Dark Ages, The Third Reich). Kerry, who was brought on the carpet by his General for killing civilians while serving in Viet Nam, voted for the Iraq Holocaust, went along with the bombing of Libya and major material support for Al Qaeda in Syria, to name a few war crimes. He lied, endlessly, about Russia's intentions everywhere on Earth in support of a political and military interventionist environment in Europe which shattered our alliance and created a military landscape, now, conducive to a coming third world war. Considering the history shattering domestic plot carried-out upon America with support by the usual Saudi jihadists in September of 2001, a domestic plot which treason and mass murder went ignored by the rich, lying blowhard, Kerry, and all his delusional, narcissistic friends who, preferred to use the attack on New York City to trash everything our forefathers created while dropping a curtain of surveillance and fear upon the entire population, looting the Treasury, stealing our democracy, and creating the worst income and health disparities in our history; why would anyone consider the blowhard queen, Kerry, for anything other than to stand in a dock along side all the rest of them.

So according to your screed, this is all John Kerry's fault.
OK, got it!

How can you conclude that pedernales blames Kerry for what pedernales describes? Non sequitur---It does not follow.
Pedernales is just pointing out that Kerry is not a very clear thinker in proposing a "borderless world" .
Perhaps the next proposal will be a world devoid of separate, particular ethnic cultures. I would be saddened by that. It bothers me that German and French culture is being diluted with the influx of Muslims.
It would also bother me if Turkey, for instance, would be flooded with millions of Europeans to the extent of diluting the Turkish character of that nation---much like the diluting the land of Palestine by the millions of Europeans that have invaded.

"It does not follow."
Thanks for admitting his screed was off topic.

It bothers me that Muslims bother you. Racial purity is so pre WWII.
The only reason why Muslims are "influxing" Europe is because the US Government has invaded the middle east. US Fascism is on the march! That is what should bother you.

The ad nauseam reports on lack of fidelity that is characteristic of the self regulating, de-regulated SRO investment system, have become repetitive. There is one strategy to make adherence to lawful business plans compulsory and non-negotiable.

If an investment company has been doing business under a strategy using deception and breach of contract as its basic operating procedures, there is one way to stop that in its tracks: Inform the company as to where it is in breach of lawful standards and give it a time specific to restructure. If it refuses, have the state confiscate the company and turn it over to the workers, who would be trained on how exactly to put lawful standards at the top of the list of corporate goals and objectives.

This could be where the worker co-op could become a major tool in the cause of de-corrupting our regulatory foundations. I do not see this option being adopted under the predatory/colonial traditions of what is called justice on this continent. However, colonizers made deals to have their jurisdiction moving westward over the continent with the understanding that they would use their sovereignty to provide good government. This is provably not the case with all the evidence of untrustworthy practices destroying the credibility of the investment process. There are groups that have had our dysfunctional concept of justice ruled unlawful in Geneva under the Covenants that North American governments have become signatories to. With strong, open solidarity with Indigenous Governments, the end of impunity for lying brokerages will be in sight. 1worker1vote.org

In my view this is not Capitalism, this is feudalism. This Oligarchy has not interest in growth other than the accumulation of wealth at the expense of everything else. This is not expansion, this Oligarchy represents collapse of society.
This is a big race to the
bottom for the 99% and it has to be stopped because more and more people
are dying along with our environment which is in the midst of a mass
extinction.

Not feudalism, fascism. There is a difference. We no longer have monarchies and kingdoms. Instead, we have national states and corporate people.

Chris Hedges uses the term, "neo-feudalism," to describe our current economy in which financial institutions have enormous power over citizens and are loosely tied to a centralized authority (the federal government, in this case). This is similar to how a feudal system operates, and is as good a term as any to describe our specific form of state capitalism. Because that is what it is--capitalism.

It may be slightly more meritocratic than the old monarchies (not necessarily a significant difference for the masses), but that is swiftly changing as we develop dynasties such as the Bushes, Clintons, etc.

Hedges over complicates things. Fascism is the correct word to use. But for some reason, people have a phobia about using the word.

Hedges also uses Sheldon Wolin's term, "inverted totalitarianism." He describes it this way:

Inverted totalitarianism is different from classical forms of
totalitarianism. It does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader but in the faceless anonymity of the corporate state. Our inverted totalitarianism pays outward fealty to the facade of electoral politics, the Constitution, civil liberties, freedom of the press, the independence of the judiciary, and the iconography, traditions and language of American patriotism, but it has effectively seized all of the mechanisms of power to render the citizen impotent.

Our dynasties are caused by the passive American people who believe everything that the controlled Media feed them. As long as non-thinkers have the same vote as thinker we will have dynasties.
The Media/TV are in bed with Big Capital and control the passive masses to believe what big Capital wants them to think.
We used to laugh about how Soviet Media, Pravda and Izvestia, controlled the Soviet people . Our Media/TV are no different than Pravda and Izvestia. And teachers in public schools would be fired if they told their pupils the truth about our Media/TV.
Out pupils are taught what the Bus, Clinton, Koch, AIPAC dynasties want our pupils to be taught.