Today’s politicians don’t like to talk about a gold standard. In 1914 Germany went off a gold standard which allowed the government to fund WWI. In 1924 the Papiermark became worthless and people used it in their stoves to warm their homes. It was at this time the government went back on a gold standard, using the new Reichsmark to be the gold backed currency.
Today’s macroeconomists at the Fed and American politicians like their German counterparts in the early 1920’s may not want to talk about a gold standard but that reality is fast approaching where it will be unavoidable. Currently the dollar of 1971 buys 4 to 6 cents of its value now. Financial commentators like Steve Forbes, economist Judy Shelton, Austrian school economists, and even though Ray Dalio has not advocated for a gold standard he believes it will be necessary to deal with a currency collapse.
In a fiat currency system relies on the government becoming a holder of credit much like your credit card company. You create debt with the use of your card and the company gives you credit for the people you’re paying but you’re responsible for the payment. Physical gold in your possession is not a financial claim on any institution, government, or company. It cannot be defaulted upon, nor does it depend on government solvency. When a currency is backed by gold, the holder of the currency can ask the government for redemption of the currency in gold when requested.
As my husband's famous ancestor, WJB, said IN HIS argument against the gold standard when there was a better case for it than there is now "YOU WILL NOT CRUCIFY US (THE USA) ON A CROSS OF GOLD!!!"
Not everyone wants a white Christian male dominated technocracy. You lose your credibility when you say that. No one I know wants that. I'm female and I have members of my family who have ancestors from Eastern and Western Europe, but ALSO China and Mexico. We are multi ethnic and so are other people I know. IT is true we live in Los Angeles, California where people of different ethnicities, religions, and countries thrive. We are the most populous city in the United States I believe. The urban centers of the USA including Los Angeles are filled with people from all over the world, we will not stand for a white Christian, ethnocentric state.
She is not saying that everyone wants it, she is saying that this government is trying to create that through its policies and that this will not work out because most people do not want it.
Well I will have to disagree to some extent. The USA by design is not exclusively controlled by the Federal government. Fortunately the Founders felt that the states have say in government. In a state like California which is liberal and I live in California none of this crap is happening and it will not happen. The Federal government by design has limited powers and I am glad of that. Yes the conservative states like in the deep south are buying this but the West is not and the North east is not and states can choice how they want to handle the situation for the most part.
There is an argument that if a state wants to buy this crap like some Southern states they have the right to do so. Again California does not buy this and as long as they are not telling us what to do, then that is not a problem at least for those of us who live in CA. One does have the right to move to another state if they do not like the policies of the state they currently live in, that actually is part of the Constitution, the freedom to live in whatever state you want to live in.
It is fortunate that the states have rights, although the Supreme court is picking and choosing which ones to enforce. Again, Prof. Ben-Ghiat is not saying that the government will ultimately succeed. She is saying that is the goal of this government and that is how decisions are being made about what kind of bills are passed are based on these goals.
Chicago is also in a blue state, and yet, I see inroads being made by the Federal government. For example, the state does not have the power to say ICE cannot enter their state. On the other hand, our state has successfully been taking ICE members who violate the law to court. Our governor has stood up to national guards being sent to our state. Our AG has been aggressively fighting the actions of the Trump regime as has our state legislature, and our governor as well as our mayor.
Still, that does not mean up until now that they can control the airports, or other things that are considered federal services. Our budget was balanced with considerably less money for things like SNAP and Education than it had in the past. Not everyone in Illinois is voting Democratic, but the agricultural sector is not what dominates the state. California also has its conservative areas and racists just like Illinois and even Chicago does. Fortunately freedom loving people predominate. That is why the Trump administration goes after our states.
Linda, If I may pipe up: You’re absolutely right. We have an independent office for investigating misdeeds by state agencies, but there is no office at all for investigating misdeeds by federal agencies in Illinois. I know because I tried to ask Kwame’s office to investigate federal violations of the law and the US Constitution in our state, and was told when I called, that’s not his job, nor is it anybody’s job. I know that he is, in fact, fighting for Illinois against the feds, but it’s a bit outside the pre-drawn lines.
So, there are structural limitations going forward, because as you note, the dictatorship of Trump is using its corrupted judges to try to take away the rights of states to protect our citizens against federal violations of our rights.
I hope that Ms Freshman S. is not using AI, not depending on AI, or not AI, because it seems like she’s not hearing you quite right. Their ignoring of your side of the conversation can mean you’re dealing with a bot.
I don't think it was ever implied that everyone wants a white christian male dominated society. In fact it's those here who hope they are in the minority. Presumably you misunderstood
I don’t see where she says “everyone”? I see the goal attributed to the “current United States government” — which is true insofar as the elected leader of the executive branch and his team all do, and act on it. The party that controls both houses of the legislative branch either support, or don’t prevent, this agenda. And the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, the height of the judicial branch, clearly support this agenda. These people, who control every branch of the US government do want and support a white Christian male dominated society.
The majority of the country is opposed, at this point a meaningfully large majority, but such is our creaky 18th century Constitution that we are somehow stuck with them. We must act in the coming elections.
Your comment is unclear. If you clarified to whom you're referring to "who hope that are in the minority". It seems you're referring to those who are actually in the minority and exploit the categorization.
Quite obviously, if everyone wants a homogenous ethnostate, then that’s what we will have. But we WON’T have one because lots of people believe in human rights for all people. And they even like diversity! It’s a tempation to say the supporters of the Trump regime want a white male dominated technocracy, which also may not be quite true. But if not, they’d need to explain themselves.
Oh, what a dreary afternoon that would be, having to listen to their explanations.
Listen, I have heard plenty of “family” members spout Trump nonsense, and I can read in what they say a desire to maintain “majority rule” by folks like themselves: white, oriented toward “father knows best,” and generally authoritarian in their morality.
There’s “homogenous” and there’s “homogenized.” The latter means blended until there are no lumps or clumps. AKA melting pot. I think a lot of the folks I just described prefer a homogenized America.
People like them do not want to be a racial or moral minority.
Oddly, in situations where part of a population is one race and part is another, the conflict is least when one race has a clear majority, like 80 percent. Racial tension mounts as the ratio nears 50/50. The most dangerous places are those where one race has only a slight edge over the other.
I agree, Dr. Ben-Ghiat, this effort will fail. The changing demographics in our country are undeniable. The regime is trying to hold back a shift in the population that's been building for decades. I'm convinced the vast majority of us love and appreciate our diversity. We just need to be awakened to these attempts to undermine it. Thank you for your clarion call.
The only way to stop MAGA and Evangelical Christian, white conservatives Christina’s is to remove tax free status for all religions in the , stop supporting private religious schools. Take away the money they have no power.
I’m a devout Christian, and I think you are right. It’s too easy to use power to harm people, and now with inequality at an all-time high in America, Big Money pours into nefarious causes through “charitable” organizations (churches and others).
Again, taxing churches would assure the survival of the very same churches you rightly criticize, and I oppose. But it would destroy faith communities that lack money.
You’re an intelligent person who will give it much thought and put it all together in the end. I will advise that you always consider unintended consequences of public policy decisions.
Thus:
What would Trump say if you handed his regime economic control over establishments of religion? Would he like it or not?
What would mega-churches say if you handed them taxation as a political issue?
Keep reading. Keep talking among yourselves. Keep learning. You’re not there yet, but you will get there. Think like you’re playing chess.
Maybe find an establishment of religion that gives you something you aren’t getting yet. It can feel like a shooting craps. Hang on and before you roll the dice, smile, laugh, and think, “What if?"
I remember when, under Bush, a new office of faith-based initiatives or something like that appeared, ostensibly to support religious entities (tax wise) to provide social services.
I think seeds might have been planted during Clinton's time. The name changed over the years - but I've always been somewhat concerned about the impact on the separation of church and state and if there is a need to look the Constitution with this lens.
Slippery slope and such. Now I see Hegseth has dramatically reduced the number of acknowledged religions. This is quite concerning to put it politely.
One problem I see with this is that the only churches which would survive would be the wrong churches - the ones that have strong finances, strong financial backing.
My pastor’s gay, lots of us are gay couples and individuals, we sing a lot in Spanish, we have a lot of intellectuals and survivors who came to us from conservative churches. But we do not have money.
I don’t oppose these big churches, but I think they should not be given tax exemptions that help them maintain far too much political power. Since i’m almost certain we will never end tax exempt status for churches anyway, I can dream of an extremely progressive tax exemption that would allow exemptions only up to a certain dollar amount per year. A church with few resources would be fully exempt, while only a small portion of a wealthy church’s donations would be exempt. There are lots of smart, educated people who could develop a reasonable plan. Just far too few lawmakers and judges who care about the interests of the entire country.
I agree with you; we can dream of something much better. And too few of these officials follow the rule, “Do no harm,” when pursuing policies.
“Thou hast nor youth nor age, but as it were an after dinner sleep, dreaming on both.” - Measure for Measure.
You should see it/watch it; then study it. It’s about our time, about what’s happening with a dictator in charge of a progressive or liberal community. I think it would be the kind of play you’d like to dig into. The ending is, well, a challenge to women, and to men.
Wrote a dramatization reply to this — the Mussolini “clinician” passage stayed with me. It’s a labor-and-delivery nurse, one new box on a birth worksheet she’s filled out four hundred times, and a second envelope that didn’t used to be there. Full piece here:
Thank you for this excellent essay Ruth! Rather than stories about the Maine Senate candidate Platner’s imperfections, can’t the mainstream media roll up their sleeves to study, then report, on this broad topic that contains many stories within? Most Americans will be surprised when shocking things occur…
I really appreciate this exposé of the roots of the attempted fascist takeover in the United States, and its parallel to previous fascist dictatorships. I’m particularly aware of the importance of the uprising against it, which is increasing in size and scope every day, and that gives me a lot of hope. 82 years ago yesterday, the D-Day invasion of Europe started. We need to think about the terrible cost of allowing a society to go fascist and what it cost the world in lives taken and terrible destruction.
It’s amazing that this administration is not even trying to hide its ethno-national aims. Officials says the quiet part out loud quite often. People who support this regime have no excuse not to know they are supporting the same kind of world Mussolini aimed for. It’s time to choose a side. I’m reading Gal Beckerman’s How to Be a Dissident.
The post-Reconstruction South provides a template: it shows that the white citizens were willing to endure decades of very slow growth, terrible schools, poor public services and many other indignities in exchange for keeping Jim Crow policies in effect.
It’s no surprise that today many tens of millions of white citizens are willing to see the US become the “Hungary of North America” in exchange for living in their Gilead
This is really disturbing. But I think you’re wrong to attribute so much to authoritarian religious morality.
It’s notable that they didn’t pursue a policy of backwardness in a political vacuum. They were allowed to rape and murder, to enforce race laws. They ended Reconstruction by threatening to renew the Civil War in order to gain power for local rulers, state rulers, who led them through transitions, from agricultural economy to service economy. The South never had much of an industrial economy.
Southern economies are healthier today only because manufacturing is such a slight part of our economy, and because the unions are busted.
The poor schools were Negro schools. When schools were integrated, the white students moved to private schools, by and large, and the public schools became very poor indeed.
The white citizens in the South did not suffer as much as you suggest, because they were able to subdue and inflict suffering on black citizens, while threatening poor whites with the fear of miscegenation. They were able to keep poor whites in place.
A Case For A Gold Standard
Today’s politicians don’t like to talk about a gold standard. In 1914 Germany went off a gold standard which allowed the government to fund WWI. In 1924 the Papiermark became worthless and people used it in their stoves to warm their homes. It was at this time the government went back on a gold standard, using the new Reichsmark to be the gold backed currency.
Today’s macroeconomists at the Fed and American politicians like their German counterparts in the early 1920’s may not want to talk about a gold standard but that reality is fast approaching where it will be unavoidable. Currently the dollar of 1971 buys 4 to 6 cents of its value now. Financial commentators like Steve Forbes, economist Judy Shelton, Austrian school economists, and even though Ray Dalio has not advocated for a gold standard he believes it will be necessary to deal with a currency collapse.
In a fiat currency system relies on the government becoming a holder of credit much like your credit card company. You create debt with the use of your card and the company gives you credit for the people you’re paying but you’re responsible for the payment. Physical gold in your possession is not a financial claim on any institution, government, or company. It cannot be defaulted upon, nor does it depend on government solvency. When a currency is backed by gold, the holder of the currency can ask the government for redemption of the currency in gold when requested.
As my husband's famous ancestor, WJB, said IN HIS argument against the gold standard when there was a better case for it than there is now "YOU WILL NOT CRUCIFY US (THE USA) ON A CROSS OF GOLD!!!"
Not everyone wants a white Christian male dominated technocracy. You lose your credibility when you say that. No one I know wants that. I'm female and I have members of my family who have ancestors from Eastern and Western Europe, but ALSO China and Mexico. We are multi ethnic and so are other people I know. IT is true we live in Los Angeles, California where people of different ethnicities, religions, and countries thrive. We are the most populous city in the United States I believe. The urban centers of the USA including Los Angeles are filled with people from all over the world, we will not stand for a white Christian, ethnocentric state.
She is not saying that everyone wants it, she is saying that this government is trying to create that through its policies and that this will not work out because most people do not want it.
Well I will have to disagree to some extent. The USA by design is not exclusively controlled by the Federal government. Fortunately the Founders felt that the states have say in government. In a state like California which is liberal and I live in California none of this crap is happening and it will not happen. The Federal government by design has limited powers and I am glad of that. Yes the conservative states like in the deep south are buying this but the West is not and the North east is not and states can choice how they want to handle the situation for the most part.
There is an argument that if a state wants to buy this crap like some Southern states they have the right to do so. Again California does not buy this and as long as they are not telling us what to do, then that is not a problem at least for those of us who live in CA. One does have the right to move to another state if they do not like the policies of the state they currently live in, that actually is part of the Constitution, the freedom to live in whatever state you want to live in.
It is fortunate that the states have rights, although the Supreme court is picking and choosing which ones to enforce. Again, Prof. Ben-Ghiat is not saying that the government will ultimately succeed. She is saying that is the goal of this government and that is how decisions are being made about what kind of bills are passed are based on these goals.
Chicago is also in a blue state, and yet, I see inroads being made by the Federal government. For example, the state does not have the power to say ICE cannot enter their state. On the other hand, our state has successfully been taking ICE members who violate the law to court. Our governor has stood up to national guards being sent to our state. Our AG has been aggressively fighting the actions of the Trump regime as has our state legislature, and our governor as well as our mayor.
Still, that does not mean up until now that they can control the airports, or other things that are considered federal services. Our budget was balanced with considerably less money for things like SNAP and Education than it had in the past. Not everyone in Illinois is voting Democratic, but the agricultural sector is not what dominates the state. California also has its conservative areas and racists just like Illinois and even Chicago does. Fortunately freedom loving people predominate. That is why the Trump administration goes after our states.
Linda, If I may pipe up: You’re absolutely right. We have an independent office for investigating misdeeds by state agencies, but there is no office at all for investigating misdeeds by federal agencies in Illinois. I know because I tried to ask Kwame’s office to investigate federal violations of the law and the US Constitution in our state, and was told when I called, that’s not his job, nor is it anybody’s job. I know that he is, in fact, fighting for Illinois against the feds, but it’s a bit outside the pre-drawn lines.
So, there are structural limitations going forward, because as you note, the dictatorship of Trump is using its corrupted judges to try to take away the rights of states to protect our citizens against federal violations of our rights.
I hope that Ms Freshman S. is not using AI, not depending on AI, or not AI, because it seems like she’s not hearing you quite right. Their ignoring of your side of the conversation can mean you’re dealing with a bot.
She means the regime in DC.
I don't think it was ever implied that everyone wants a white christian male dominated society. In fact it's those here who hope they are in the minority. Presumably you misunderstood
I don’t see where she says “everyone”? I see the goal attributed to the “current United States government” — which is true insofar as the elected leader of the executive branch and his team all do, and act on it. The party that controls both houses of the legislative branch either support, or don’t prevent, this agenda. And the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, the height of the judicial branch, clearly support this agenda. These people, who control every branch of the US government do want and support a white Christian male dominated society.
The majority of the country is opposed, at this point a meaningfully large majority, but such is our creaky 18th century Constitution that we are somehow stuck with them. We must act in the coming elections.
Your comment is unclear. If you clarified to whom you're referring to "who hope that are in the minority". It seems you're referring to those who are actually in the minority and exploit the categorization.
Quite obviously, if everyone wants a homogenous ethnostate, then that’s what we will have. But we WON’T have one because lots of people believe in human rights for all people. And they even like diversity! It’s a tempation to say the supporters of the Trump regime want a white male dominated technocracy, which also may not be quite true. But if not, they’d need to explain themselves.
Oh, what a dreary afternoon that would be, having to listen to their explanations.
Listen, I have heard plenty of “family” members spout Trump nonsense, and I can read in what they say a desire to maintain “majority rule” by folks like themselves: white, oriented toward “father knows best,” and generally authoritarian in their morality.
There’s “homogenous” and there’s “homogenized.” The latter means blended until there are no lumps or clumps. AKA melting pot. I think a lot of the folks I just described prefer a homogenized America.
People like them do not want to be a racial or moral minority.
Oddly, in situations where part of a population is one race and part is another, the conflict is least when one race has a clear majority, like 80 percent. Racial tension mounts as the ratio nears 50/50. The most dangerous places are those where one race has only a slight edge over the other.
That’s when the Trumps roll in.
We don’t want to be a herrenvolk republic. We must support our fellow citizens’ rights.
I agree, Dr. Ben-Ghiat, this effort will fail. The changing demographics in our country are undeniable. The regime is trying to hold back a shift in the population that's been building for decades. I'm convinced the vast majority of us love and appreciate our diversity. We just need to be awakened to these attempts to undermine it. Thank you for your clarion call.
The only way to stop MAGA and Evangelical Christian, white conservatives Christina’s is to remove tax free status for all religions in the , stop supporting private religious schools. Take away the money they have no power.
Exactly!
I’m a devout Christian, and I think you are right. It’s too easy to use power to harm people, and now with inequality at an all-time high in America, Big Money pours into nefarious causes through “charitable” organizations (churches and others).
Again, taxing churches would assure the survival of the very same churches you rightly criticize, and I oppose. But it would destroy faith communities that lack money.
So we should put limits on how much can be exempted in a single year. There are surely ways to make this work well.
You’re an intelligent person who will give it much thought and put it all together in the end. I will advise that you always consider unintended consequences of public policy decisions.
Thus:
What would Trump say if you handed his regime economic control over establishments of religion? Would he like it or not?
What would mega-churches say if you handed them taxation as a political issue?
Keep reading. Keep talking among yourselves. Keep learning. You’re not there yet, but you will get there. Think like you’re playing chess.
Maybe find an establishment of religion that gives you something you aren’t getting yet. It can feel like a shooting craps. Hang on and before you roll the dice, smile, laugh, and think, “What if?"
I remember when, under Bush, a new office of faith-based initiatives or something like that appeared, ostensibly to support religious entities (tax wise) to provide social services.
I think seeds might have been planted during Clinton's time. The name changed over the years - but I've always been somewhat concerned about the impact on the separation of church and state and if there is a need to look the Constitution with this lens.
Slippery slope and such. Now I see Hegseth has dramatically reduced the number of acknowledged religions. This is quite concerning to put it politely.
This is quite different from taxing churches.
It’s funding churches. Both federal and state government should not send money to churches, nor grant churches a role in spending taxpayer money.
My church has little money, none from the feds - we would not accept it if it were offered, and it won’t be.
But we provide space for AA, for local arts organizations and a few community organizations to use.
I’m saddened to see that responders to this proposal need to do more research into the situations faced by real churches.
As I said, no school should open its doors to a church, and no church should be given taxpayer money, not for education, not for anything.
One problem I see with this is that the only churches which would survive would be the wrong churches - the ones that have strong finances, strong financial backing.
My pastor’s gay, lots of us are gay couples and individuals, we sing a lot in Spanish, we have a lot of intellectuals and survivors who came to us from conservative churches. But we do not have money.
I don’t oppose these big churches, but I think they should not be given tax exemptions that help them maintain far too much political power. Since i’m almost certain we will never end tax exempt status for churches anyway, I can dream of an extremely progressive tax exemption that would allow exemptions only up to a certain dollar amount per year. A church with few resources would be fully exempt, while only a small portion of a wealthy church’s donations would be exempt. There are lots of smart, educated people who could develop a reasonable plan. Just far too few lawmakers and judges who care about the interests of the entire country.
I agree with you; we can dream of something much better. And too few of these officials follow the rule, “Do no harm,” when pursuing policies.
“Thou hast nor youth nor age, but as it were an after dinner sleep, dreaming on both.” - Measure for Measure.
You should see it/watch it; then study it. It’s about our time, about what’s happening with a dictator in charge of a progressive or liberal community. I think it would be the kind of play you’d like to dig into. The ending is, well, a challenge to women, and to men.
We will stop them like our fathers and grandfathers did 82 years ago. The spirits of the men buried in the Cemeteries in Normandy demand it.
If anyone has questions about why the South African oligarchs ended up here, this is your answer. We will need Nuremberg 2.
Wrote a dramatization reply to this — the Mussolini “clinician” passage stayed with me. It’s a labor-and-delivery nurse, one new box on a birth worksheet she’s filled out four hundred times, and a second envelope that didn’t used to be there. Full piece here:
https://lucid.substack.com/p/a-holistic-plan-for-a-white-christian?r=2leuaj&utm_medium=ios
Thank you for this excellent essay Ruth! Rather than stories about the Maine Senate candidate Platner’s imperfections, can’t the mainstream media roll up their sleeves to study, then report, on this broad topic that contains many stories within? Most Americans will be surprised when shocking things occur…
The “whiteness” in that White House photo of the interns is shocking!
What year is it? 1956?
Thank you Ruth.
I really appreciate this exposé of the roots of the attempted fascist takeover in the United States, and its parallel to previous fascist dictatorships. I’m particularly aware of the importance of the uprising against it, which is increasing in size and scope every day, and that gives me a lot of hope. 82 years ago yesterday, the D-Day invasion of Europe started. We need to think about the terrible cost of allowing a society to go fascist and what it cost the world in lives taken and terrible destruction.
It’s amazing that this administration is not even trying to hide its ethno-national aims. Officials says the quiet part out loud quite often. People who support this regime have no excuse not to know they are supporting the same kind of world Mussolini aimed for. It’s time to choose a side. I’m reading Gal Beckerman’s How to Be a Dissident.
Not to mention the corruption.
Looking 4ward to you & Frank Figliuzzi — you both wrote tremendously important books, about 5-6 years back, that I’ve read more than once…
And Ruth, I’d love the opportunity to talk about your feelings regarding Italy’s Giorgia Meloni - perhaps before she turns 50? 👌🏼🌞
The post-Reconstruction South provides a template: it shows that the white citizens were willing to endure decades of very slow growth, terrible schools, poor public services and many other indignities in exchange for keeping Jim Crow policies in effect.
It’s no surprise that today many tens of millions of white citizens are willing to see the US become the “Hungary of North America” in exchange for living in their Gilead
This is really disturbing. But I think you’re wrong to attribute so much to authoritarian religious morality.
It’s notable that they didn’t pursue a policy of backwardness in a political vacuum. They were allowed to rape and murder, to enforce race laws. They ended Reconstruction by threatening to renew the Civil War in order to gain power for local rulers, state rulers, who led them through transitions, from agricultural economy to service economy. The South never had much of an industrial economy.
Southern economies are healthier today only because manufacturing is such a slight part of our economy, and because the unions are busted.
The poor schools were Negro schools. When schools were integrated, the white students moved to private schools, by and large, and the public schools became very poor indeed.
The white citizens in the South did not suffer as much as you suggest, because they were able to subdue and inflict suffering on black citizens, while threatening poor whites with the fear of miscegenation. They were able to keep poor whites in place.