(Brick, N.J., USA) - The reference above refers to the events at Lexington, Massachusetts, Of April 19, 1775. The American militia fired upon his majesty’s troops and began the American Revolution.
There is at this moment in our history another American Revolution, clearly less bloody, but of greater consequence. This revolution has come about through the election of Barak Obama for a second term as America’s President.
America has been ruled by an Oligarchy through most of its history. Wealthy, well positioned men and women controlled the political process and ruled through their surrogates holding elective office, at nearly every political level.
This at least is how revisionist historians understand our history and political processes. Revisionist American history allows a less romanticised version of our past and present. They painfully cut to the quick, a dispassionate, less hysterical, history.
The essence of revisionism, a most pejorative description, is to reinterpret American history with a critical analysis of causes and effect, decisions and evidence.
G. William Domhoff, in his book Who Rules America describes the political process of the US as one held captive by a small percentile of the population, whose position and wealth allow them control of the ordinary citizen’s political and economic state, a classic Oligarchy Domhoff first published his revisionist thesis in 1967 and added new editions in ’83, ’98, ’02 and ’06.
He demonstrates the interrelationship, between American Presidents and their extended families, to show the close family tie of many of our Presidents.
Their intent is to serve both on another and the larger Oligarchy’s purpose. Maintain the status quo that is most to their advantage, politically and economically. They have ruled this country from its inception.
Taking the most critical understanding of our history we are meant to understand that the American Revolution was begun as a rejection of the burden of taxation, and control, of American business held by the elite of our early society. George Washington, perhaps our greatest American hero, was more a corporation than an individual.
He was the largest landowner in the country, and owned the largest Whisky distillery in the United States, an exceptionally profitable undertaking.
The Crown’s taxes on his business were oppressive. The same patronal position is true of nearly all of the Founding Fathers of America’s revolution.
Benjamin Franklin was a business man, a publisher and printer of newspapers, and books. Thomas Jefferson was a plantation owner, a vast plantation, dependent for its success on his profit, absent taxation.
The list goes on to include virtually all of the principals members of the revolution who agitated so successfully among the American populace for the breach with the British King. Taxation of all colonies was necessary to support the British Monarch’s new conquest of territory and rate payers.
The King himself, an absolute monarch, made a great deal of money through conquest colonisation and taxation. Money was necessary for the King to wage war, endure and expand the Crown territories. There was no noble purpose to British conquest; it was only a matter of creating wealth and power.
Better to keep the money at home to themselves, was the prevailing thought of America’s revolutionary hero’s, according to revisionist theory.
America’s revolutionary elite were to seize, and held power through an Oligarchy of the wealthy throughout the following decades. Domhoff describes the close personal and family relationship among a number of our past presidents. The Roosevelt’s originally an American colonial family of Dutch descent, are the clearest example.
There were a number of intermarriages amongst the Oligarchy to ensure continuation by the elite in their dominance of the American the political, and economic states.
The rich coalesced into a social class that developed institutions through which the children of its members were socialized into a permanent upper class. Members of this class still control the major corporations, the primary mechanism for generating and holding wealth in this country.
The ordinary American has had less power through the electoral process than is understood. The ability for the electorate to force change, and create a more equitable society, has been severely limited by elite’ resistance.
Voting does not necessarily make government responsive to the will of the majority when the control of our government is in the hands of an elite who will not permit their primacy to be undone or their wealth and influence diminished.
That is perhaps until now. American society has changed. The composition of the society is now altered by the influence of the have nots. The once white, complacent, majority is no longer the deciding factor of America’s electorate.
There has been a great deal said of the brilliance of President Obama’s electoral campaign. There was far less brilliance than there were the realities and the dynamics of the electorate. The desire for dramatic change, and a rejection of what is seen by a majority as the obstructionist elite who make their lives untenable.
No candidate represents this class better than did Mr. Romney. Mr. Romney admitted as much in his revelation of the 47% of Americans receiving government assistance who he, and his class hold in contempt and hold as societies parasites. A revealing thoughtless remark from a member of the Oligarchy.
The remarks were both an admission of the existence of the elite and their dominance, albeit revealing the frustration with the new demographics dominant, within the social context and contrary to the elite’s purpose and intent.
Mr. Romney, and the elite haves been undone, bringing an opportunity for this country to right itself after decades of frustrated dreams. The supporters of Mr. Romney are abandoning the sinking ship. Clamouring down its ropes like rats.
They scuttle away with a snarl, and most unseemly comments as to the character and competence of their hapless candidate. Their obsequious character demonstrated in a most unflattering way.
(Morgan Strong was a professor of Middle Eastern and American history, and was an advisor to CBS News 60 Minutes on the Middle East