Gradual Socialism - Increasing Servitude
"The philanthropy of the age is moving heaven and earth to the overthrow of the institution of slavery. But slavery has no scientific definition. It is thought to consist in the feature of chattelism; but an ingenious lawyer would run his pen through every statute upon slavery in existence, and expunge that fiction of law, and yet leave slavery, for all practical purposes, precisely what it is now. It needs only to appropriate the services of the man by operation of law, instead of the man himself. The only distinction, then, left between his condition and that of a laborer who is robbed by the operation of a false commercial principle, would be in the fact of the oppression being more tangible and undisguisedly degrading to his manhood. If, in any transaction, I get from you some portion of your earnings without an equivalent, I begin to make you my slave - to confiscate you to my uses; if I get a larger portion of your services without an equivalent, I make you still further my slave; and, finally, if I obtain the whole of your services without an equivalent - except the means of keeping you in working condition for my own sake, I make you completely my slave." Stephen Pearl Andrews, 1851
I spent a lot of time in the Denver Public Library in the magazine section looking up old weekly press, mainly from the period of time known as the "New Deal." What started me doing this was my research into the income tax laws. The Denver Public Library was a great place to do research. My compliments to the people who set up the facility and run it. They were very helpful in my research.
On the third floor is the magazine section. You can research and study volumes of old weekly press back to around 1900. But when you want to look at stuff that dated back usually before the 1940's, you have to ask the folks at the desk if the magazines are available. This is how I found out that I could research The Saturday Evening Post back to the year 1900. That was great, because I knew that the income tax began in 1913 when the 16th amendment became part of the Constitution of the United States. Surely there must have been something written about this in the press back then. Guess what? There sure was, and now you'll get to see what the lawmakers' intent was back then regarding the income tax .
In the May 17, 1913 issue of The Saturday Evening Post, I found an article by Benton McMillin entitled "The Income Tax." McMillin was a ten term congressman from Tennessee and was a staunch defender of the income tax. He would be appalled if he could see what has happened with it today. Rather than go into great detail about this article, I've included it in the appendix of this book. You can read it for yourself. But we can clearly see that the income tax was only designed to tax the gains and profits of corporations and wealthy individuals. It was not intended to tax the labor of working people, and for 23 years after the income started back then, less than 3% of the population had to file and pay federal income tax. Consider a quote from a 1936 Saturday Evening Post article.
"The politicians see to it that less than 3% of 120,000,000 people pay income taxes........ Mr. Roosevelt is loved by millions for his humanitarianism. But the groups that worship him would not feel so kindly if the government grants and subsidies were to stop."1
After coming to realize that the income tax was not used to tax the labor of working people when it began, I knew there had to be a period in history where the income tax was perverted to start taxing labor. I found it during the period known as the "New Deal." I also found it interesting that there were people back then who predicted that folks like me in the future would find this period in history and brand it as the starting point of a great change in the system that set the nation on a new course. Herbert Hoover, in a campaign speech in Madison Square Garden, N.Y. on October 31, 1932 said: "This campaign is more than a contest between two men. It is more than a contest between two parties. It is a contest between two philosophies of government."2 What Herbert Hoover was trying to explain was that a different philosophy of government meant that they way people think would be transformed over time if a different philosophy of government were adopted. I didn't have any opinion on Herbert Hoover or Franklin D. Roosevelt (also called FDR for short) before I did my research. But I have learned that you can get to know someone who lived in times past by the writings and speeches they left behind. Both these men are dead. Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis are dead. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are dead. But they still remain in spirit through their writings, as do many others from the past.
One need not be a scholar when it comes to digging for the truth. William Channing could see that the slaveholders of his day were well educated men. This is why he took the position that education can have a darkening influence on the minds of some people. This can be seen many years later with the Einstazgruppen during World War II. All of the leaders of these four Nazi death squads were highly educated men with honorary doctorates.
George Lorimer, who was editor of The Saturday Evening Post from 1899 through 1936 knew what the income tax was all about. In an editorial from 1934, we read: "By income taxes we strive to redress the balance and at the same time make the builders of great fortunes pay proper toll to the society which had made their success possible."3 I doubt that most people that work for a living today would view themselves as the "builders of great fortunes." What happened?
Remember that I asked the question in the previous chapter: Since slavery necessitates social security, does social security necessitate slavery? The Social Security Act was passed by Congress in 1935. Before this law there was no federal income tax on the labor of American workers. Perhaps we can understand why the Indian chiefs that were wise refused any gifts or money from the white man, and encouraged their people to do the same. I found it interesting that no member of congress took part in framing the social security laws. George Lorimer saw this and said:
"Nothing more aptly illustrates the way in which Executive authority is spreading under present conditions than the use which is being made of the so-called omnibus method of legislation. An omnibus bill, as the reader knows, is one covering or providing for many different objects. It is an extremely objectionable legislative device, because it confuses conscientious lawmakers and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to examine proposals with care, thus assuring a minimum amount of informed legislative scrutiny....... The holding company, banking and social security bills, being driven through Congress at this writing, are striking examples of omnibus legislation, but most, if not all of their features bear no relation to any emergency. No such excuse is available; they represent simon-pure examples of Executive dominance."4
As the reader may remember from history, there was a great depression back in the 1930's that started with the stock market crash of 1929. Since there was a lot of unemployment many people were desperate for a solution to the crisis. Naturally, since Herbert Hoover was president when things went down the tubes, he didn't get re-elected. This happened to Jimmy Carter too in the 1980 election. Whoever is in office when things get bad will get blamed for the mess and not get re-elected. Hoover's opponent, Franklin Roosevelt, won the 1932 election and took over the presidency. On March 9, 1933, he called congress into an emergency session. He promised America a "New Deal." This 100 day session of congress saw a great mass of legislation that congress voted into law with little or no debate. Congress didn't write the laws nor did they read hardly any of them. All of these laws were written by a group of people called a "Brain Trust." They were sort of an inner cabinet of Franklin Roosevelt's. It was this period of history where congress surrendered their legislative responsibilities to the executive branch of government. Congress used to write laws before the New Deal of the 1930's. Now all they do is sponsor legislation and vote on bills. Rarely are any bills studied by any members of congress before they are voted upon. The recent Patriot Act is one example of this. This has been the case ever since the 100 day emergency session of congress back in 1933. So, for over 70 years almost all, if not all, laws on the federal statute books have been written by non-elected people and rubber-stamped by congress. The Constitution does not give the congress the power to surrender their legislative responsibilities to others. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on this in 1935 in a unanimous decision. It said: "The Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested."5 It blew my mind to realize that almost all, if not all, federal law that has come into being since 1933 was written by non-elected people in the Executive branch in violation of the Constitution. In the August 12, 1933 issue of The Saturday Evening Post, an article appeared called "The Hundred Days." It tells all about the 100 day emergency session of congress and is in the appendix.
The important thing to remember from this period of history is that this was when the labor of working people became subject to the income tax. Before the social security act of 1935, there was no federal income tax on the labor of working people and there were no social security numbers either. In the beginning, social security numbers were numbers that were supposed to function like a savings or a checking account number. The number identified your old age pension account with the feds. So much for that. Now social security numbers are assigned to children right after birth. It is also interesting to note that the social security tax on labor was supposed to start at 1% in 1937 and gradually increase to 3% in 1949. Anyone can see that the taxation upon their labor far exceeds 3% today. The people back then only saw the benefits and gave little, if any, thought to the fact that they were handing their labor and the labor of posterity over to these New Deal labor cannibals.
Let's look at how the Social Security Card has changed since the system first started. The card below comes from a 1942 ad in Newsweek magazine.
Notice the card example from 1942 says: "Social Security Act Account Number has been established for [name and signature]. Now let's look at one from today.
This one sure does look different, doesn't it? Notice what this card says: "Social Security - This Number Has Been Established For [name and signature]. Notice there's nothing about an account number being associated with the Social Security Number. That's because there is no account to identify today. It doesn't exist, but nevertheless, we must all have the numbers in order to work.
In studying the Dred Scott v. Sanford case, I learned that, from studying many other U.S. Supreme Court cases, that this was the only case where all nine justices wrote opinions. The case was over 100 pages long. Seven justices wrote opinions that argued in favor of slavery at the time, and two justices dissented. But the important thing about the Dred Scott case is that it gives the researcher an excellent understanding of how the laws apply to slaves and also expands on the intent of the framers of the Constitution. One of the justices who dissented was Curtis. I took the time to find this case in the Supreme Court Reporters in the Law Library at the Jefferson County Courthouse in Golden, Colorado. I've copied a lot of cases from that library. The sign at the entry said that the library was for the use of court personnel and lawyers, and that us common folks had the privilege of using the place. Mighty nice of em. But anyway, Justice Curtis said something in his opinion that opened my eyes to something that is commonplace today that proves that we live in an institution of slavery. All slavery has its similarities. As Mark Twain said, history might not repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes.
"If, in Missouri, the plaintiff were held to be a slave, the validity and operation of his contract of marriage must be denied. He can have no legal rights; of course, not those of a husband and a father. And the same is true of his wife and children. The denial of his rights is a denial of theirs. So that, though lawfully married in the Territory, when they came out of it, into the State of Missouri, they were no longer husband and wife; and a child of that lawful marriage, though born under the same dominion where its parents contracted a lawful marriage, is not the fruit of that marriage, nor the child of its father, but subject to the maxim partus sequitur ventrem."6
I had bought a law book that had a long listing of legal maxims. I found the meaning of partus sequitur ventrem. It is simply: "The offspring follow the condition of the mother."7 Back in Dred Scott's day, women didn't have the right to vote. Now they do. It only makes sense that since women have the right to vote that if an institution of slavery exists today, the offspring would follow the condition of both mother and father. Think about this. Before social security, there was no tax upon your labor and there were no social security numbers. Now that taxes are imposed upon your labor and your children are assigned Taxpayer Identification Numbers at birth, what is you status? Free or slave? Your condition of servitude is passed on to your children. Mommy and daddy have social security numbers that identify them as income tax payers. Their labor are articles of commerce, and therefore can be taxed and garnished. Their children follow the same condition. History sure does rhyme, doesn't it?
What the New Deal of the 1930's did was massively expand Federal Executive power in violation of the Constitution. It created a massive Executive Bureaucracy where the labor cannibals could exercise power beyond the elective control of the people; and congress acts as their rubber-stamp. I'm not the only person who sees this today. A recent book called The Constitution in Exile, by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano (Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst), pointed out the constitutional abuses back during the New Deal and the attack by Franklin Roosevelt and his associates on the independence of the court system. Rather than amending the Constitution to legalize their massive expansion of federal power, the politicians of the New Deal chose to attack and pack the court system from the Supreme Court on down with people who would create whatever legal fictions necessary to give constitutional abuses of power a legal appearance.
"We are told that we are in a social revolution and that a new system is being evolved. What we actually have is a queer combination of Fascism and Socialism."8 This is what George Lorimer said late in 1933. Early in 1935, he said: "Certainly it is wholly fair to raise the question of whether any form of liberty could long survive under a process of Socialism, even of the gradualist variety."9 This is the key to understanding what has been slowly happening to American workers ever since the New Deal began. Social Security started a process of gradual socialism in America. I prefer to call it gradual cannibalism, because the burden upon our labor has gone from 1% starting in 1937 to the levels we see today. Here's some more about the Social Security Act of 1935 as reported on by Lorimer.
"It is only in the past month or so that even the more-informed sections of the public have begun to realize the staggering financial burden which the Social Security Act of August 14, 1935, has placed upon the country. It is said that only a handful of men in Congress understood this complex, far-reaching and stupendous undertaking. The words social security' were enough in themselves. But only 3 days later A.J. Altmeyer, assistant Secretary of Labor, went before a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee to ask for a deficiency appropriation to organize the work of the Social Security Board set up under this legislation, and more especially for the old-age-benefits division. The chairman of the committee challenged this request, in view of the fact that no benefits will be paid until 1942. But Mr. Altmeyer replied: This is the most colossal undertaking the Government has ever embarked upon. It will involve the expenditure of 4 or 5 billion dollars' [a year] when it gets into full operation, and we must be absolutely certain that our actuarial estimates are sound and that our system of reports is correct. Otherwise it would be fatal. How will we keep track of these 25,000,000 people who will some day qualify? We will have to know what their contributions were and what their employment records are. They will transfer from one employer to another and from one state to another. We will need very elaborate records.' Indeed the records will be elaborate. For the old-age records alone it is estimated that 30,000 new Government employees will be required. Proper execution of the plan means that at least one record be kept by the Government of every individual in then annuity class, his numerous employments, his varying wages, the amount of taxes payable and actually paid thereon, and the amount of benefits. It was a colossal task to keep track of the 4,800,000 in our armed forces in the World War, but that was nothing to the Social Security Job with its 25,000,000. For business executives, lawyers, accountants, and the like, the act is especially important because it imposes new forms of taxes upon business operations and because the Federal Government steps into relationships between employer and employee heretofore considered beyond its powers. The taxes begin at a low rate in 1937, but increase by successive stages for 13 years, when the total upon employers will be 6% and upon employees 3%. But the tax upon employers is not upon income or profits, and thus upon ability to pay, but rather upon pay rolls, which have very little relation to ability to pay. Therefore, the tax will work out with the greatest possible inequity as among different employers in the same industry, different industries and different sections. 6% of a pay roll does not sound like a great deal, but it may prove a very much higher percentage than 6% of the net income or profits, and it is almost certain to increase the proportion of total taxes to income by an enormous figure."10 (my emphasis)
You see, before social security, the government did not interfere in you ability to contract your labor and get paid your wages every week. It was considered unconstitutional and out of bounds. There were no income tax forms that interfered with the contract you had with your employer. At the end of the week you got cash in a pay envelope with no deductions. Has the way people think been transformed over the past seven decades? Think about this.
In 1937 the tax upon the labor (wages) of workers was 1%. When I ran for congress in the year 2000 elections, a young man named Vincent let me use one of his paycheck stubs as an example of today's cannibalistic servitude. His regular pay for the week ending 9-15-2000 was $237.80. After taxes and garnishment took their toll on his labor, he was left with $83.54. This means that he was left with 35% of his labor to try and live on. Remember the Jews in the Lodz ghetto when the Nazis were in power? The Nazis taxed the labor of the Jews at the rate of 65%. I ask you: Is this young man free or slave? I ask you again: If slavery necessitates social security, does social security necessitate slavery? This young man is not the only one to have servitude of this magnitude imposed upon him by the force of law. There are multitudes more all across America and no doubt in other countries that treat human labor as a great feast. Social Security in our present day is easy to understand. It's simply the enslavement of one class (working class) for the benefit of another class (those receiving benefits). The increasing servitude that goes along with gradual socialism can be seen in the number of workers required to support people receiving benefits. At the time of this writing, according the White House web site, in 1950, it took 16 workers to support 1 person receiving benefits. Today it takes 3.3 workers to support 1 person receiving benefits. One must ask how long it will be before the ratio becomes 2-1, for it will happen without fail - the baby boomers are coming.
In 1857, George Fitzhugh, the Virginia lawyer and slaveholder, stated: "But, reader, well may you follow the slave trade. It is the only trade worth following, and slaves the only property worth owning. All other is worthless, a mere caput mortuum [worthless residue], except so far as it vests the owner with the power to command the labor of others - to enslave them."11 Fitzhugh also said: "You are a Cannibal! And if a successful one, pride yourself on the number of your victims quite as much as any Fiji chieftain, who breakfasts, dines, and sups on human flesh - and your conscience smites you, if you have failed to succeed, quite as much as his, when he returns from a successful foray."12 Fitzhugh was talking about those who feast upon labor while absolving themselves from the responsibilities of masters. Fitzhugh also took the position that the more people we are able to enslave, the more respectable we become. "Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.' The more scalps we can show, the more honored we are."13 According to this way of thinking, Franklin Roosevelt should be the greatest President in the history of the United States. When he signed the Social Security Act of 1935, the labor of millions of American workers was reduced to commerce to be taxed at the pleasure of the federal labor cannibals. David may have slain his tens of thousands, but FDR slain his millions and was loved by millions at the same time. Most states, after seeing that the federal power was getting away with taxing labor, began taxing it too, and so most states today have an income tax on labor, thus expanding labor cannibalism to the state governments. Of course, the state returns say that anyone required to file a federal return is required to file a state return. FDR, in 1936, said: "In the hands of a people's government this power is wholesome and proper. But in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy, such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people."14 Roosevelt knew the risks of handing the people's labor over to the federal executive power, and seven decades after the New Deal we have a government that believes it can tax and garnish our labor with no limits and no restraints. Our liberties have become shackled by the labor cannibals. Is this the type of government you want? If you're on the receiving end of slavery, then you'll probably argue in favor of the system. If your one of the millions of slaves who bear the yoke, you might have a different opinion, especially if you're part of the class that's only left with 35% of their labor to try and live on. Fitzhugh, who was a self-educated lawyer like Lincoln, also said: "Society will work out erroneous doctrines to their logical consequences, and detect error only by the experience of mischief."15
Most people who objectively study the New Deal period of American history will take the position that FDR packed the Supreme Court. I submit that he did not pack the Supreme Court at all, for he could not have done any further damage to the Court if not for his landslide re-election in 1936. FDR's secret court packing plan would never have reared its ugly head if he had been defeated in the 1936 election, for his administration would have ceased to exist. What the 1936 election did was put voters to the test. The people were told in the press and over the radio that their Constitution was being violated and why. They were warned by the Supreme Court. But they re-elected the New Deal by a landslide. They chose the New Deal over their Constitution, and most of them, I submit, did it willfully and knowingly. In an editorial from June, 1936, Lorimer said: "No one voted for the New Deal and its plans, policies and panaceas at the last presidential election, for the simple reason that they were sprung on the trusting and unsuspecting voter only after the event."16 In 1932, the voters were unaware of what FDR's plans were. The pledges and promises is his 1932 election speeches were, quite frankly, mostly lies, and the people were shown this too. But in 1936 ignorance was no longer an excuse. The people knew exactly what they were voting for, and an overwhelming majority voted against their own Constitution. Is there any wonder then why FDR and his associates took this landslide re-election as a popular mandate to go ahead full steam - the Constitution and the Supreme Court be damned?
On page 54 of Volume I of Edward Gibbons' The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1823), we read: "Under a democratical government, the citizens exercise the powers of sovereignly; and those powers will be first abused, and afterwards lost, if they are committed to an unwieldy multitude."
It was Hitler who said: "The broad masses of a people consist neither of professors nor of diplomats. The scantiness of the abstract knowledge they possess directs their sentiments more to the world of feeling. That is where their positive or negative attitude lies."17 Was he right?
The people have lost their sovereignty by voting it away. Every election cycle the labor cannibals are kept in power. All that is necessary to keep them in power is for people to vote for the parties they have been conditioned to vote for from childhood, for these parties are dedicated to the perpetuation of the great labor feast. No one in the popular political parties dares to suggest abolishing the Social Security system and giving workers back their free labor market. That would not be popular and would be political suicide. Most people will cling to the Social Security system at all costs and will look with scorn on anyone who dares to assert that it should be abolished. Therefore, we are trapped in this system of cannibalistic servitude, and we must look to the future bearing in mind that the presumption is very strong that things will only get worse with time. Such is gradual socialism. For the rest of the life of the United States and other countries where cannibalistic slavery is an institution, working people most likely will never again have the right to a free labor market. The labor cannibals, no matter what party label they wear, have done an efficient job destroying the right. The Constitution is in exile, and the constitutional right to free labor is dead.
Interestingly, a French fellow named Alexis De Tocqueville foresaw a mess like this way back in the 1830's after traveling around America an then writing a book that was a critical examination of the American democratic system. He warned of the tyranny of a majority and could see that a majority could vote the liberties of the people away by chasing cherished ideals. He could foresee that a democracy could vote itself into servitude, and I must take his position that "I am not the more disposed to pass beneath the yoke because it is held out to me by the arms of a million of men."18
1. The Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 10, 1936, pp. 109-10
2. Addresses Upon The American Road, Herbert Hoover, Charles Scribner's Sons, N.Y. 1938, pg. 1
3. The Saturday Evening Post, March 31, 1934, pg. 22
4. The Saturday Evening Post, June 22, 1935, pg. 22
5. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S., 295 US 495, 529
6. Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How 393, 599-600
7. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Banks-Baldwin Law Publishing Co., Cleveland, 1940, pg. 784
8. The Saturday Evening Post, December 9, 1933, pg. 22
9. The Saturday Evening Post, January 19, 1935, pg. 22
10. The Saturday Evening Post, December 7, 1935, pg. 22
11. Cannibals All! - Or Slaves Without Masters, Edited by C. Van Woodward, The Belknap Press Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1960 (originally published in 1857) pg. 19
12. Ibid., pg. 17
13. Ibid., pg. 39
14. The Saturday Evening Post, February 15, 1936, pg. 22
15. Cannibals All! - Or Slaves Without Masters, pg. 6
16. The Saturday Evening Post, June 27, 1936, pg. 22
17. Mein Kampf (originally published in 1925) , Houghton-Mifflin Co., Boston, 1971, pg. 337
18. Democracy in America, by Alexis De Tocqueville, edited by Richard Heffner, New York and Scarborough, Ontario, 1956 (originally published in 1835 & 1840), pg. 149.