Government by the people

Government by the people, aka democracy, was OK as long as “people” was a category restricted to adult males. The freed men were quite successfully absorbed until their business acumen was perceived to be in competition with white males. Although females perceived their exclusion from the electoral process as being responsible for their subordinate status, access to the franchise after the passage of the 19th Amendment did not significantly affect societal restrictions, which were largely effected by currency restrictions.

It is perhaps grossly ironic that the increase in civil rights mandated by the legislation of the 1960s fell to Richard Nixon to implement and that, in addition to increasing the potential electorate by reducing the age of maturity to 18, Nixon loosed the artificial restraints on the currency that would lubricate the transit of women into economic equality.

When the Fair Wages Act of 1963 was passed, there was some grumbling that the wages of traditional earners (men) would be decreased. Disconnecting the currency from the stock of gold in Fort Knox was a logical answer. If more money was needed to pay for more work, then printing more dollars made sense.

Not considered was the loss of social status suffered by males whose role as sole “breadwinner” and “head of household” became increasingly difficult to maintain as the costs of basic sustenance increased to exceed what one person could earn. While the restraints imposed by gold were removed, Congress imposed new constraints by forcing the distribution of currency to pass through the banksters’ hands.

Finance had already fallen into the hands of gamblers by the time of the 2008 system collapse, but even in 2020, when the response to economic cessation was left to the banks to manage with five hundred billion dollars, it was not known the banks were not up to handling the distribution to their customer base. Only after it took them nine months to distribute forty two billion was it inescapably obvious that the banks were simply incompetent, like their sponsors in Congress.

The talents required to accumulate are obviously not the same as those required to distribute. Winning and losing take no skill.