The Bloody Conflict of Ideologies in France

  The middle class, the bourgeoisie, were so distinct from the rest of the French in nineteenth-century France that Karl Marx could point them out in the street by the way they dressed. They studied Latin and used its vocabulary to speak an upper-class Latinized French that peasants and workers could not understand. They took over the French nation politically and economically. They set themselves up as a separate class living by what they considered universal values based on a disciplined, exclusively rational way of life that led to divorce from any direct contact with God and to a devotion to financial success as the only path that anyone worthy of belonging to their class should follow. They reorganized the political and legal structure of France so it could be ruled exclusively by them from Paris. They were openly at war politically and economically against all the French who were not bourgeois like they. Thiers, the bourgeois head of the government in 1871, slaughtered with the army over 20,000 French citizens who had set up a revolutionary commune in Paris.

  Men of the bourgeois class all over Europe always had an eye to pursue wealth globally. During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, individuals from this class gained riches in international trade and some imitated the values of the aristocratic classes by becoming patrons of the arts. As the bourgeoisie grew in power, the bourgeois ideology was accepted in all the European nations and empires as a guide to a worthy way of life. Aristocratic culture, Catholic Christianity were all weakened greatly by the ideology’s power based on scientific discoveries, constant innovation in industry using new technologies. and the dominance over all thought using an exclusively rational approach to the question of what was real. Hegel wrote that all of history was an expression throughout various historical periods of an Absolute Spirit that appears partially in concrete rational forms. Hegel’s dictum that “whatever is real is rational” is the most succinct expression of bourgeois thought even though it is manifestly absurd.

  All ideologies when applied forcefully to the real world are destructive but the bourgeois ideology survived and prospered because it produced wealth for the rich efficiently. It is now accepted globally as the only ideology that makes sense even though its science continues to destroy the natural world by creating new technologies for the profit of rich entrepreneurs. The  scientists themselves now warn us that the postmodern global world is employing for its development so massively technologies that science  invented  that as a result the health of the globe is being destroyed.

   All other ideologies have failed and it is impossible to act successfully in the real world globally without becoming a living puppet guided on a personal level by the powerful strings of the universal bourgeois ideology. France, where the bourgeoisie first arose in the eleventh century and where its ideology was refined and exported, has now been the victim of an alien ideology much more cruel and destructive but like the bourgeois ideology one wabbling madly and out of control towards the goal of all ideologies created by logic, the destruction of God’s good living creations.

Daniel McNeill
The website of The United States of the World is: usoftheworld.com
Read the complete book, 12 essays on American history, "The United States of the World" at: usoftheworld.com/history

The Anglo-American Bloc Adopts The Same Foreign Policy

   The foreign policy of the United Kingdom at the end of the Second World War was determined by world conditions and self interest. The British Empire had to be dismantled and the military and economic power of the UK had to be increased. The overriding logic behind dealing with the  new worldwide conditions dictated that former colonies and territories must be freed to become independent states and that it was precisely their new status as nation-states that made them ripe for domination and economic exploitation by London and its ally Washington. The war had joined the United States and the British Empire militarily and politically and the union continued afterwards because the two power centers agreed to continue to keep their military and secret-service institutions united. The anglo-american bloc uniting all the English-speaking countries adopted one and the same foreign policy: create and support nation-states worldwide and exploit any and all wealth within them by making them secure for rich investors and corporations by dominating them with diplomatic and military power.

  The foreign policy of the United States in 1959 with the admission of Hawaii as the 50th state in its union might have continued pointing in its revolutionary direction. It might have freed emerging new nation-states from foreign domination by admitting them also as new states in its union. The United Kingdom did form a Commonwealth of Nations, a voluntary association (at the present time) of 53 independent and sovereign states most of which were former British colonies or dependencies. It has a framework of common values but no real political union. Its common values and goals, while absolutely good in themselves, are also such as would aid a foreign power out to dominate them and exploit them economically: all the Commonwealth nations agree to promote democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism and world peace. It is certain that the British Empire, in spite of its cruel and selfish actions, did unite the world and make it more peaceful and secure. But over five hundred million people in its empire had no political power at all and the millions grouped in the various nation-states of the Commonwealth of Nations possess political institutions incapable of assuring them a just distribution of wealth. Certainly any state in the Commonwealth that joined the American union of states would have had more political power and much greater economic development. But Washington went along with London. It gave up admitting new states and instead supported and dominated nation-states worldwide for its selfish interests instead of continuing to join new  states to its union of sovereign states as it had been doing from 1790 up until 1959.

Daniel McNeill

A Radical Change Possible Now

    The issue in the 2016 presidential race is now quite clear: most voters don’t want to vote for any Washington politician. In other words, in our great successful revolutionary political system there is not a single political issue of substance that interests Americans or that any candidate for president dares to run on. Whoever can portray himself or herself as an outsider to the central government of the United States will win a majority of the votes! How can Americans be so wrong? Why can they not see that their central government in Washington does not want to govern them, is unable to govern them even if it wished to do so, and that, although it was set up by the Constitution with enough jurisdiction over us to unify us, it was not established to govern us. Why do they expect that Washington change and do things that it is unable to do? They do not see that Washington already does things very well that are vital for their own security and for the security of the world. Why can Americans not bring about change  by supporting what Washington does well and by urging Washington politicians to use their power and influence to convince states in the world to join the union of our fifty states? What political change could possibly be greater and more profitable for us Americans than the admittance by Congress of even just one new state? If it were in Africa, would it not be great for thousands and thousands of Americans to find exciting careers teaching there? Could not our technologically advanced farmers  turn any new  American state located anywhere into an agricultural powerhouse that would be profitable for both old Americans and the new Americans in the new state? Look at Cuba. If the government of Cuba agreed to allow Cubans to vote in a referendum either yes or no to petition Congress for admission as the fifty-first state, a majority would vote yes and admission would enrich Cuba with hundreds of advanced businesses and federal government agencies that would guarantee democracy and prosperity in Cuba so radically and so powerfully that the present “revolutionary” leaders of the island would appear no more revolutionary than spinster retired elementary school teachers. Everyone knows that there are billions in dollars or in other currencies worldwide that would eagerly and enthusiastically be invested in any new American state secured by its own local judicial and financial institutions backed up by the American military and by the judicial and financial institutions of the American federal government. We Americans don’t need to spend our lives hanging around Boston or Topeka drinking a latte and dreaming of change. Washington has the means right now to change the world radically for good without changing itself and such a change in the world will also change us for good.

Daniel McNeill

.

Daniel McNeill’s novella The End of All Beginnings is available at

https://www.amazon.com/End-All-Beginnings-Daniel-McNeill-ebook/dp/B01IO1PEXO/ref=sr

Read it free on Kindle with a free app or buy it on Kindle for $1.99.

Also available as a book for $5.99.

A powerful and very dramatic exploration of love and relations between

a 70-year-old man and four women, two sisters 18 and 19, their mother

46, and a lesbian friend 22. It is full of well-written dialogues between the five

In various situations including sexual relations. The drama moves fast right

from the start and it is impossible not to read it as quickly as possible (it

can be read in less than three hours} to an ending that is totally unexpected

and explosive. A complex drama that moves with its own momentum towards

one liberating ending to all its beginnings.

Daniel McNeill

The Dialectical Development of the Concept of United States

   The concept of a union of states with limited sovereign powers becomes rooted in world history by the American Constitution of 1787-90 which established united states on the east coast of America. The concept in an altered form was adopted by Napoleon since he tried with French military power to unite the states and empires of Europe. He also supported the American union by selling President Jefferson the Louisiana territory making room wholly or partially for 14 new American states. Using the Hegelian model of dialectical development, we must look however for a negation of the concept and then for a negation of the negation which will be an affirmation. After the ratification of the American Constitution by 13 states, Hamilton and the Federalist Party call for a central bank and the Supreme Court makes decisions that increase the central power of the government in Washington to try to make the American union work like a nation-state. But this is just the beginning of the negation. President  Lincoln declares his federal government in 1861 “national”, forces 4 more states to secede from the union, and makes  war against one group of American states using another group. This is the full negation but in the Hegelian sense it maintains the original concept even in the negation because Lincoln must declare, in order to motivate northern soldiers, that they are fighting to preserve the union. He both disunited the union and held it together in a new form of unity. His revolution aiming to further reduce the sovereignty of the states could not prevent the admission of 12 additional states to the union by 1914. By then the Federal Government had become de facto the imperial ruler of 48 states but they retained enough sovereign powers to function as democratic states and the Washington government was still far from being the fully sovereign government of a nation-state. Because the nation-states of Europe in 1914 are independent and sovereign they are incapable of unifying like American states. The First World War in Europe so shocks the American president Woodrow Wilson that he boldly opposes the omnipresence of independent national states in Europe by championing a League of Nations with 2 of his 14 points for it modeled after the political status of the united states in America. This is the third stage of the original concept of united states. Wilson’s league is doomed to failure because the nation-states are inflexible and the peoples in the various European colonies do not yet live in their own states. The bourgeois European states throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries have nevertheless been unifying the world by colonization. They continue this form of worldwide unification after the disaster of the First World War. In the second disastrous world war caused by nation-states, two unions of states, the Russian and American unions, united with the British Empire, the most successful European-style unity of peoples, win the war. Postwar, the European colonies are decolonized creating for the first time independent states worldwide capable of being united worldwide. Now  at last  the concept introduced to world history in America in 1787-90 arrives at the third stage of its dialectical development. America uses its power to win the cold war and bring into history a worldwide union of all the peoples of the world in states with the government in Washington at its political center either de facto or de jure. Many states are still not members of a union of states but they are at least already part of a de facto world union. In addition to the original American union now grown to 50 states, we have the European Union of 28 states who have accepted in an altered form President Wilson’s proposal in 1919 for a League of Nations. Counting the United States and the European Union, we have a total worldwide of 78 united states whereas when the concept began in 1787-90 there were only 13 united states.

   Globalization is the ground for a new concept taking birth now at the beginning of the 21st century. This concept can only aim at a further unification of the world by the construction of a united states of the world uniting all the states of the world in one union. The first unmistakable evidence that this new concept is already at work in history is the inability of many nation-states, old and new, to maintain a peaceful equilibrium among their citizens and to develop their economies prosperously in a globalized world economy. Some nation-states are collapsing before our eyes.They all need to assure a democratic government and economic prosperity for their citizens by becoming new states of a de jure world union of states. No doubt the difficulties of establishing de jure this world union of states would be lessened if the government in Washington would recognize publicly for the whole world to hear that it is not a state, that it is not located in a state, that it does not have fully sovereign powers, that its Constitution gives its Congress the right to admit new states, and that it is thus the prime candidate in the world to bring a new revolutionary concept to birth in history for the good of humanity by transforming itself to the central government of a worldwide de jure union of states.

Daniel McNeill

Loyalty To Washington

   If we Americans live in a nation that already existed way back in the times of the 17th century New England puritans (as our history books say), then we would certainly have revolted by words and actions against the Supreme Court’s decision that giving unlimited money to politicians is a form of free speech. The seat of our nation, if it existed, would be the government in Washington and the Supreme Court would have eliminated representation in the national government for citizens seeking support for their ordinary, everyday interests. This would be intolerable in any democratic nation anywhere and the Supreme Court has simply driven home to us the point that we never were a nation, that we are not one now, that we are instead a union of fifty states unified by a central government that also makes it its business to use its power to unify globally all the other states in the world. Washington is the new Rome. That is the Supreme Court’s message. The laws that our elected representatives in Congress pass are primarily based on the needs of both American and foreign corporations for their operations both in America and worldwide. However these market-oriented actions by our congressmen and senators paid richly by lobbyists representing rich interests are also in our vital interest. We Americans cannot and should not stop Washington from supporting with its many institutions and its enormous diplomatic and military power global economic and political development. We know it is in our vital economic interest that everyone in the world develop economically because our own continued development is an integral part of the process. The Supreme Court is right. Washington is the new Rome. Without it there would be no global economy and we along with everyone else in the world would be threatened by economic chaos. Money paid to Washington politicians is a form of free speech. We must be loyal to Washington not because it is the head of a nation but because it is the head of the world. What it does with the trillions of dollars it spends worldwide is a noble revolutionary form of free speech and we should help it any way we can to keep it talking loudly.

Daniel McNeill

An Unique Political System

   America never was able to become a nation because its central government is not a state. President Lincoln declared in his first inaugural address on March 4 1861 that his government was national. That was the start of his political revolution. The war that he began and won using a northern group of states against a southern group transferred more power to the central government. After the war new territories opened up in the west that could have become colonies instead of states if the Washington government had been itself a state. The European colonies were all created by national states. The sovereignty of a nation was transferred directly to each colony by appointing a governor as its sovereign. Washington was neither fully sovereign nor a state and as a result did not possess a sovereign power that could be transferred. Article lV section 3 of the Constitution gives Congress power to admit new states. Washington therefore organized the new territories by admitting them as states which automatically gave them limited sovereignty. That was the beginning of Washington’s destiny as a worldwide unifying power. From then on it either penetrated foreign states and forced them to adopt its political and economic values or else it admitted states to its union of states with limited sovereignty. Along with its reach worldwide for power it constantly sought more power in America over the united states. It gained power by amending the Constitution to further limit the powers of the states but this still was far from the attainment of full sovereignty. Americans in the period just after the Civil War understood the difficulty involved in changing America to a nation. They wanted as little as possible to do with Washington and they considered it a grave moral weakness, almost a sinful condition. if anyone expected anything from it. More than 20 million European and Asian immigrants arrived between 1880 and 1920. They came from nations and believed they had settled in a nation. That helped Washington’s push towards nationhood but it remained nonetheless the powerful government of a union of states without being itself a state. The 14th amendment to the Constitution says that an American is a citizen of the state where he resides and also a citizen of the United States. We have the powerful political freedom of double citizenship but we cannot ever live in a fully sovereign state or ever be citizens of a central government that is a state. It is impossible under such circumstances to believe we live in a nation. Our loyalty to Washington should be unbreakable but however strong our attachment to it nothing can make it a nation like other nations.

Magna Carta in 1215 began the long struggle in the English-speaking world to establish by law the individual rights of citizens but neither England nor any other nation ever struck a powerful blow against sovereignty itself. The American Constitution slices sovereignty into two parts. The  federal government has its part and the states have theirs. Except in military and diplomatic matters, where Washington is supreme, sovereignty is exercised piecemeal. We can challenge and possibly overturn in federal and state courts every law passed by our 51 legislatures. Our 51 partially sovereign governments are all split into three branches, executive, legislative and judicial. Only a political party with a majority in the federal legislature and all state legislatures can act with something close to full sovereignty. Otherwise everything happens politically in thousands of governments, local, county, state, and federal exercising each only pieces of our sovereignty. Americans should be proud of their unique political system that allows them to live free from the merciless dead weight of absolute national sovereignty. If they need a name for their system, they should stop naming it a nation and look at its name printed on our money: The United States.

Daniel McNeill

Why Hillary Clinton?

     Anyone from anywhere with money can buy power in Congress and the power our elected representatives have is marginal unless they use it making laws that aid big business. When the Supreme Court ruled that donating unlimited money to influence politicians was a form of free speech, that was the end of a certain America. In the new America we can no longer believe that Congress is structured to respond politically to the needs of the average American. Hillary Clinton is the presidential candidate with the political experience and the intelligence necessary to try to forge a new identity for Americans in new radically changed political circumstances.

   This identity can never be authentic unless it relates directly to the foreign policy of our government. What is radically new is that we face on the one hand the scourge of terrorism and on the other hand huge super nations, China, the German-led European Union, Russia, Japan. Brasil, Mexico and India. In the next 8 years the seven will be prowling all over the globe seeking opportunities for profits by using advanced technologies ever becoming more advanced. Seven blocks of economic power are beside us in the world and yet we must still use at least 590 billion dollars of our national wealth every year to keep the world safe for economic development.

   Sixty years ago when we were the most advanced economy in the world it made sense to use our wealth and power to police the world so that undeveloped and poorer states could develop economically as democracies. Now we continue with this foreign policy unchanged even though we have succeeded and states using our technologies have advanced in many cases as extensively as ourselves. On the one hand, we must continue policing the world because not doing it would provoke a worldwide disaster comparable in ancient history to the fall of the Roman Empire. On the other hand, we possess the political structure that if used intelligently can give Americans the new identity they need and can give the world the advanced political structure that it needs. We alone have succeeded in creating a highly sophisticated union of fifty states. The new identity for Americans should be as members of a union of states and the structure of our union should be extended worldwide by inviting all states in the world to become states of our union. Most candidates for president hide behind nationalistic slogans promising to make America a richer, more powerful nation. This is hogwash. We have been a de facto world government since the end of the Second World War. We must continue to be a world government and the only rational and good way to do this is by making Washington de jure the central government of a world union of states. No one but Hillary Clinton possesses the intelligence, the experience and the heart to begin to make a new identity for Americans and a new necessary identity for the world possible.

Daniel McNeill