U.S.: State-Corporate Fusion in the Face of State of Emergency

Concerns are growing among a growing number of observers in the United States that the Biden administration intends to transform the country into a one-party state by means of a spate of presidential decrees and new pieces of legislation.

While many of the concerns raised during last year’s presidential election campaign were still being dismissed, it is now becoming apparent that civil rights and the freedoms protected by the national constitution are threatening to be eroded to an ever greater degree.

The specter of totalitarianism is not only spreading in the Far East in the People’s Republic of China, but is suddenly dropping its mask in the face of Cancel Culture, Woke-ism and a growing erosion of civil liberties, including a restriction of individual freedom of movement, in Western industrialized countries as well.

Who and what special interests are gathering behind the still highly controversial President Joe Biden in the United States in order to help determine and influence the political guidelines of his administration in the background is beginning to emerge more and more.

It gives the impression that a kind of executive committee seems to have been set up behind President Joe Biden, consisting of a large number of leading representatives of the Democratic Party, their closest advisors, high-ranking big-tech representatives, and well-known and influential corporate representatives.

In the course of this, the state and corporate apparatus are growing together to an ever greater extent, which cannot prove beneficial from the perspective of civil liberties and constitutional rights.

After all, this is nothing other than a merger of concentrated power interests at the top of the state, which in many respects are diametrically opposed to the interests of ordinary citizens. This development has already been examined in more detail in the report A parallel government of the corporations.

Whether the Republican Party will be able to counter this growing pressure or will be caught even more strongly between the grinding mills in the current legislative period will probably depend primarily on internal party unity among conservatives.

Be that as it may, the most recent flood of presidential decrees signed by President Joe Biden alone shows that it seems to have been mainly the members of the executive committee behind the president who initiated and influenced the adoption of these decrees.

It is not difficult to imagine that the Democratic Party, which is also involved in massive wing warfare, is pursuing the goal of integrating its own voter base into its own objectives or further expanding its voter base in the coming years in order to come closer to the institutionalization of a one-party system that it may be striving for.

What other reason could there be, if one looks in detail at a number of the pieces of legislation recently introduced and already passed in the House of Representatives with a narrow majority of Democrats?

Foremost among these is the piece of legislation with the acronym H.R. 1 – aka For the People’s Act – which was passed in the House of Representatives and will only have a chance of Senate confirmation if it were to come to a vote in the upper chamber on the basis of the process of reconciliation, complete with filibuster nullification.

If H.R.-1 were to actually become a law in the United States, its passage, with reference to leading representatives of the Republican Party, would not only restrict individual states in their rights, but would also give the Democratic Party’s fielded candidates in the course of federal elections sometimes significant advantages over their conservative competitors for public office.

For example, if H.R.-1 were to become law, it would eliminate existing Voter ID legislation in some states, which would be diametrically opposed to interests regarding the unconditional and accurate process flow of federal elections after the experience gained in the past election year.

Further, H.R.-1 would require all states to legalize absentee ballots in all of their counties – and thus at the complete national level. The “casus knacksus” follows, as these potential absentee ballots to be cast would NOT be subject to an ID or passport requirement.

I’m sorry to put it so bluntly, but bills of this nature virtually invite election fraud, and mirror those processes and procedures in so-called “banana republics” that the U.S. government has set itself up to fight worldwide. So how believable is all this?!

Moreover, the supervision of federal elections would be transferred to a greater extent from the states to the Federal Election Commission, which would lead to a progressive centralization in this area as well. From this perspective, it is easy to imagine the headwind that the Washington administration and the White House are currently facing, especially from the red states.

Anyone who is somewhat familiar with the history of the United States will probably come to the conclusion that the states will not put up with such treatment and development. In this regard, reading this report entitled The United States Of Two Americas would be recommended as a supplement.

In addition, the enactment of H.R.-1 would be accompanied by a regulation of free speech on the Internet (of Americans, by Americans and for Americans, just imagine this from the point of view of the global standard bearer in favor of freedom and democracy rights), which in some cases would be greatly tightened.

Affected would be specifically operated websites of individuals or groups as well as messenger services and the entire e-mail traffic. Also worth mentioning in this context is the Judiciary Act of 2021, which, if passed, would expand the number of judges on the country’s Supreme Court to a total of twelve members plus the chairman of the judicial panel.

These are precisely the emerging accusations that were already made against the Democratic Party during last year’s election campaign, if one wanted to call it that at all. At that time these reproaches were still referred on the part of the party guidance into the realm of the fables. As it turns out, there can be no more talk of this in the meantime.

Of course, it is once again the radical left wing in the party that has brought this bill to the floor, even though the Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives recently indicated publicly that she would not bring this bill to a vote under her watch.

Be that as it may, developments of this nature feed the distrust that Democrats face among large segments of Republicans and Republican-ruled states like Texas and Florida.

If this bill does eventually come to a vote in the lower house, the accompanying goal would be to expand the country’s highest judicial body by four additional judges to be appointed by Democrats.

It is easy to imagine what influence the legislature would exert on the judicial decisions of the highest court of the land under such a scenario in the future. It could not even be ruled out that in such a case the Supreme Court would also give its blessing to an additional expansion of executive power.

What do such aspirations and objectives still have to do with the national constitution, in which the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches as well as a balancing of power between these three areas was clearly regulated by the founding fathers?!

The prospect of the Judiciary Act being passed is slim from a current perspective, but the mere attempt to usurp more and more powers in the same hands does suggest that it appears to be a supposed “coup” in the course of which constitutional rights are being trampled.

Let’s take a look at the executive branch, whose apparatus threatens to merge more and more with the corporate apparatus. It is not only that former representatives of large banking houses such as Goldman Sachs or BlackRock are exerting a growing influence on the shaping of domestic financial policy.

High-ranking representatives from Silicon Valley – and thus Big Tech – are now also joining the Biden administration. Large corporations and other organizations are now turning out to be mere appendages of the U.S. government apparatus.

It is easy to see that these corporations are also exerting an increasing influence on the drafting and passing of laws, which they then implement accordingly in a second stage. This can be seen, for example, in the vaccination cards that are to be introduced.

While government representatives around the globe had until recently repeatedly pointed out that there would be no compulsory vaccination, in reality things are now shaping up in a way that leaves it up to the corporate companies to introduce such compulsory vaccination through the back door. “Buy Or Die” seems to be the motto.

Don’t get vaccinated, and you will be denied flying or going to a restaurant or concert in the future. In this way, corporations and companies are making themselves the accomplices of government plans whose representatives apparently do not have the guts to tell their own people the truth about the goals they are pursuing.

In this area, too, a split is now beginning to emerge in the United States, as red states such as Texas and Florida have banned the mandatory presentation of a vaccination card by law. Meanwhile, it is becoming apparent that many more Republican-ruled states will join such a ban.

Beyond that, a host more developments indicate that a merger between government and corporate apparatuses is underway at many levels. From a historical point of view alone, alarm bells should be ringing among observers, as such entities and accumulations of power, with an added inclusion of the media, can be described as fascist systems.

Let us return to American domestic politics. It was Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters from the state of California who recently publicly called on “protesters” to seek an intensified confrontation with state authorities in the event of an “unacceptable verdict” in the case of police officer Derrick Chauvin, who is on trial for murder.

Recalling the widespread rioting, deliberate building fires, and countless looting of businesses that followed the passing of George Floyd, it is hard to avoid agreeing with the many critics of Maxine Waters who claim that her public appeal was close to a call for a nationwide riot.

Nonetheless, the government, corporate and media complex is extremely tight-lipped about the nature of such statements. In terms of domestic politics, it always seems to be just about “insurgents” and “terrorists” when Trump supporters (probably infiltrated by Antifa members) occupy the Washington Capitol, as they did on January 6, to express their frustration with political and social developments in the country.

This does not mean condoning or defending extreme events of this kind, but simply drawing attention to the double standards that now prevail in American society. This development also has a totalitarian character, which seems to be aimed at destroying the political opponent.

It should be noted at this point that we will not get too far in our Western societies with this form of thinking and acting. As an ever-increasing number of companies and corporations are dependent on the goodwill of the government (keyword: bailouts), it is all too understandable that once privately operating companies have now turned into government stooges or are themselves increasingly influencing government decisions (this is no different in Europe, by the way).

Another example of this is the Operation Warp Speed program once launched in great haste under President Donald Trump, which was launched in a cooperative effort between the Washington federal government and a large number of private companies from the pharmaceutical sector. The military-industrial complex also plays a leading role in this context.

In the face of an increasingly insane state of emergency, the state government has enabled large pharmaceutical companies to profit financially in enormous ways. In the same breath, the measures adopted in the fight against Covid-19 are legitimized by recommendations from the WHO, the CDC and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

In this way, a hitherto unseen accumulation of power in just a few hands threatens to be further encouraged. There has been enough reported and written about an advancing censorship of the digital media over the course of the past weeks and months, while it gives the impression that the so-called mainstream media seem to be becoming more and more egalitarian.

This alone results in a fire-dangerous development, because critics and dissenting views and opinions are muzzled, only to migrate underground as a result. A pluralistic society also thrives on divergent views and opinions, which in the past made it possible to achieve a balance in the final decision-making process in order to satisfy as many sides as possible.

Nowadays, however, there is little to no evidence of compromise. Decisions are made top-down, and the rest of society (the exuberant majority) has to swallow what is decided. Such a thing is only known from totalitarian systems. In this context, we recommend reading this report entitled Google Archipelago.

DepthTrade Outlook

There is not much more to add to this report, actually everything has been said that wanted to be expressed. Only one thing comes to mind, and that is a quote from the book “One Trillion Dollars”, when McCain says to John:

“When things get serious in the world, John, democracy has a break, you won’t want to be that naive now, will you?”

Christian Zürcher Send an email

From 1990 to 2005, Mr. Zürcher was a risk analyst in the institutional swiss banking sector - thereafter, he specialized exclusively in private trading of financial products. He is a certified real estate agent and studied economics. For more than thirty-five years, Mr. Zürcher has been intensively involved in the observation of financial markets, globalization, and the monetary system. Mr. Zürcher enjoys an excellent reputation as a political analyst and commentator related to finance.
Back to top button