Alexander Hamilton Was an Enemy of the People, Contrary to What the Schiller Institute & Lyndon LaRouche-ies & N.Y. Senate Candidate Diane Sare Say

The problem with the capitalist system is not, as the Schiller Inst. says, that it isn't being run right; it's that it is a system of class inequality in which the haves treat the have-nots like dirt

The Schiller Institute, founded by New York state senate candidate Diane Sare of the Lyndon Larouche Party, is very critical of our United States ruling billionaire plutocracy but not at all critical of capitalist class inequality. The Schiller Institute says that our plutocracy is running the capitalist system the wrong way, and it ought to do it the way the Schiller Institute says.

An indication of the pro-class-inequality (anti-egalitarian) aims of the Schiller Institute is its (and Diane Sare’s) praise of Alexander Hamilton. Of Hamilton, the Schiller Institute gushes:

They can only be understood from the standpoint of Hamilton's intention, the intention of implementing a Leibnizian nation able to provide for the nation's necessities, and to "procure the true happiness" of its people. Hamilton was willing to borrow forms of organization from anyone, as long as they could be used to reach this goal.

But Alexander Hamilton was an ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE who instituted taxes on the have-nots so oppressive that the have-nots rose up in violent rebellion!

There were two major rebellions by the have-nots during the time when Alexander Hamilton was calling the important financial shots. These rebellions were Shays’s Rebellion in Massachusetts in 1786-7 and the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania (and neighboring parts of other states) in 1791.

I ask you to read about these two rebellions in my article, “The U.S. ‘Founding Fathers’ Were Enemies of We the People,” in which I point out the terrible anti-have-nots role or Alexander Hamilton. Briefly, Hamilton was the architect of oppressive taxation of the have-nots in order to get money to buy back IOUs (promises of the government to pay to the bearer on demand the indicated amount plus interest; these were called ‘bonds’) that rich people (like George Washington) held.

In the case of the Shays’s Rebellion, these IOUs had been given to subsistence farmers by George Washington as payment for their service in his Revolutionary Army that fought for independence from Great Britain. Since George Washington’s government at the time didn’t have the money to make the payments called for by these IOUs, they were essentially worthless pieces of paper. But rich people bought these worthless pieces of paper from desperately poor farmers who sold them for practically nothing. And then, guess what? These rich people got the government to tax the poor farmers to get money to pay the rich owners who now owned the IOUs the full amount declared on the IOUs plus interest. This is what infuriated the farmers and led them to launch Shays’s Rebellion. George Washington had to raise a private army (the United States didn’t yet have a strong central government because the U.S. Constitution hadn’t been written yet; it was written in large measure to provide a military force to suppress rebellions like the Shays’s Rebellion) to suppress the rebellion.

Similarly when rich people who owned government-issued IOUs wanted to get their promised payment from the new (after the U.S. Constitution was written) U.S. government, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton arranged for the poor farmers in western Pennsylvania (and nearby areas) to be oppressively taxed in order to get money to pay the rich people. What set off the Whiskey Rebellion was the fact that Hamilton taxed the only real source of money-income these poor farmers had, which was whiskey they could make from their crop and sell. It was an oppressive tax, which is why the Whiskey Rebellion was so large and determined that George Washington had to lead an army to put it down.

The principle behind Alexander Hamilton’s taxes was this. When poor people own government issued IOUs then it is not necessary for the government to honor them; but when rich people own those IOUs it is absolutely necessary to honor them even if it means oppressively taxing poor people to get the required money.

The United States ruling class, starting with the Founding Fathers and especially Alexander Hamilton, was a government of, by and for the haves, and it oppressed the have-nots. The Founding Fathers were the Bill Gateses and Jeff Bezozes of the day.

The Schiller Institute reveals its anti-have-nots, pro-class-inequality character by praising Alexander Hamilton. We need to abolish class inequality, not try to make it work “better.”

The Schiller Institute Also Loves Franklin Delano Roosevelt; Read Why:

This Schiller Institute article by Hartmut Cramer about FDR gushes in praise of the man, beginning with praise for FDR’s fondness for Alexander Hamilton, no less. It notes, “he wrote his Harvard paper on Hamilton, in which he showed that he understood the significance of a dirigist economic policy for building a nation.”

Cramer continues the gushing praise with:

No wonder, that the breathtaking development of the first months after F.D.R. had taken office in March 1933, was widely called the “Roosevelt Revolution”; in fact, it was one: a new phase of the American Revolution. (As the President told the Daughters of the American Revolution in 1938: “Remember, remember always, that all of us—and you and I especially—are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.”)

This theme, that he would seize the moment of crisis to take away power from Wall Street, Roosevelt hammered home during his entire election campaign of 1932: “I believe, that our industrial and economic system is made for individual men and women, and not individual men and women for the benefit of the system,” F.D.R. said in August in Ohio, and continued: “I believe, that the individual should have full liberty of action to make the most of himself; but I do not believe, that in the name of that sacred word, a few powerful interests should be permitted to make industrial cannon fodder of the lives of half of the population of the United States.”

But FDR was an enemy of the have-nots whose great mission was to protect the capitalist system against the have-nots who wanted to abolish its class inequality

“I want to save our system, the capitalistic system,” FDR told an emissary of the archconservative newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst. To do so, Roosevelt said, “it may be necessary to throw to the wolves the forty-six men who are reported to have incomes in excess of one million dollars a year.” [Read the sources  here and here and here and here .]​

The context of FDR's New Deal was not FDR's supposed benevolence towards the working class but, on the contrary, his and his fellow upper ruling class members' fear of the working class.​

But what, exactly, were the upper class leaders afraid of? Answer: revolution. To fully appreciate how afraid they were of the possibility of revolution in the United States at this time, it is necessary to know what the working class was doing in the period just before and then during the 1930s. This is our history, but we are not taught it. I encourage you to read a summary of this history in my article about FDR here, taken as an excerpt from my book, The People As Enemy: The Leaders' Hidden Agenda in World War II. also online free here. (The footnote numbers are those in book, and these references are also provided here below.) You will see that FDR feared and opposed the working class, just as did Alexander Hamilton, another person we’ve been taught to worship. One example, from my above-linked article, is this:

On May 9, 1934 longshoremen on the West Coast went on strike, "cutting off nearly 2,000 miles of coast land." The strike spread to teamsters, sailors, marine firement, water tenders, cooks, stewards, and licensed officers. On the forty-fifth day of the strike the San Francisco Chief of Police sent 700 policemen to the docks with tear gas and riot guns to break the picket lines of 5,000 strikers. A reporter wrote, "it was as close to actual war as anything but war itself could be." Two strikers were killed and 115 hospitalized. That night the governor of California ordered in 1,700 National Guard soldiers with armored cars and machine gun nests and ordered them to shoot to kill. By July 16 there was a general strike in San Francisco of 130,000 workers which spread to Oakland and then up the Pacific Coast. Authorities brought in 4,500 National Guard troops including infantry, machine guns, tank, and artillery units.​

The Los Angeles Times wrote: "The situation in San Francisco is not correctly described by the phrase 'general strike.' What is actually in progress there is an insurrection, a Communist-inspired and led revolt against organized government. There is but one thing to be done--put down the revolt with any force necessary." FDR's National Recovery Administration chief, General Hugh S. Johnson, went to San Francisco and declared the general strike a "menace to the government" and a "civil war."[195]

Seeing working people taking matters into their own hands and ignoring the rights of private property, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt crafted the "New Deal" to convince them that their problems would be solved by corporate and government leaders. FDR’s New Deal was how the American ruling class staved off revolution!

FDR’s World War II role was entirely an anti-working-class one

If you read my online book about World War II you will learn that FDR secretly worked hard to make the Japanese attack the U.S. first in order to get the American public—which was overwhelmingly opposed to entering the war—to agree to enter the war, while he lied to the American people that he would never lead the U.S. into the war. You will also read how FDR’s wartime policy was absolutely anti-working-class. His policy was to use “fighting fascism” as a pretext for actually fighting pro-working-class movements around the world. FDR insisted on unconditional surrender to keep the war going longer than necessary to defeat Hitler and the Japanese fascists. Why? Because the war was a way to demand that American workers stop their revolutionary actions and unite behind American capitalists in an overtly racist war against working class people abroad. Thus FDR insisted on allying with the overtly anti-working-class and notoriously corrupt Chinese ruler, Chiang Kai-Shek, who refused to fight the Japanese fascists, and opposed allying with the Chinese communists who were actively fighting the Japanese fascists (this despite the fact that U.S. military generals urged supporting the communists.) And FDR recognized the fascist puppet government of France—the Vicky government—instead of supporting the anti-fascist French Forces of the Interior (200,000 strong) who were fighting it.

FDR’s support for fascist governments was evident as early as 1936 when he put a “moral embargo” on American citizens sending arms to help the Republic of Spain defend itself against the attempt by the rebel fascist general Franco to overthrow it (this is also reported in my book on WWII.)

If you read my book about World War II you will understand that by praising FDR so effusively, the Schiller Institute is praising an enemy of the have-nots.

The Schiller Institute praises enemies of the have-nots because it is not opposed to class inequality; it is not opposed to there being a class of very rich people who lord it over and get rich off of the much larger class of have-nots. It is not opposed to a social/economic system in which an upper class not only does treat the have-nots like dirt but MUST treat them like dirt, as I explain here. The Schiller Institute just wants the capitalist system to be run they way it says it should be run, apparently the way Alexander Hamilton and FDR ran it; that’s all.

Diane Sare, founder of the Schiller Institute and member of the La Rouche Party, is against some things that I too am against. But she is also for capitalism—class inequality—and this is what I and the vast majority of people are against.

Read here how YOU can help build the egalitarian revolutionary movement to stop the modern-day descendants of people like Alexander Hamilton from oppressing the have-nots and treating us like dirt to make the rich richer.