by Jimmie Moglia for The Saker blog
The skeptics among my twenty-five readers may suspect from the title, that I am jumping on the bandwagon of our discontent, to direct cheap shots at a stale target.
Perish the thought. Irreverence towards the actors excludes irreverence towards the myth, even if the actors were its fathers – for myths are the ground of civilizations and mythology is the song of the imagination.
Most of us are proud of being Europeans or descendants thereof, though the mythical Europa eloped with Jupiter, who assumed the shape of a white bull, for whom she had developed a penchant. A type of relationship most of us would not entertain, unless they are postmodernist cultural Marxists and followers of the Frankfurt school.
In the Middle Ages the myth was the Fall in the Garden, followed by the redemption from the Fall through the Son of God, and the redemption of man through the sacraments. Protected by the medieval castle, the cathedral was the center of the sacrament.
The Reformation, the ensuing wars of religion and capitalism displaced the medieval myth. The growth of the large European states, notably France and Spain, and of course England, called for another myth – that of the king, directly anointed by God.
Revolutionary America could not replace George III with another king, though some considered the idea. Imbued with the spirit of the (French) enlightenment, and sharing in the resurrected popularity of legends, leaders and lore of the ancient Roman Republic, the Founding Fathers converted that spirit into words.
It’s no wonder that they appealed to the Laws of Nature and Nature’s non-denominational God, from where they derived that… “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
As I said, once we recognize the intrinsic power of myth and leave it untouched, we may take the liberty of examining its actual rendition in real life.
To begin positively, the words ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ have a pleasant, musical and lyrical rhythm. Much better than an earlier proposed version, ‘… inalienable rights to life, liberty and the protection of property.’
For on sober second thoughts, the Founding Fathers decided to modify the wording. To make a myth out of the protection of property is almost to reduce a republic to an institution for the prevention of pilfering. And to assume that all citizens at large are endowed and imbued with the soul and the spirit of shopkeepers, pawn brokers and used-car salesmen. For indeed, where everything is for sale, “to things of sale, a seller’s praise belongs,” and so does the protection of things sold.
British law was already acutely keen towards the protection of property. Unsaid but subsumed in the ‘protection of property’ was a brand new land-grab from the natives, in a brand new world of limitless capitalism.
Accredited historians say that Jefferson proposed to substitute happiness for property in the Declaration – a small detail in itself but it fits his persona and attitudes, as they transpire from his writings and actions at large.
Next, we can perhaps take it in stride that ‘all men are created equal,’ less the slaves because they were not human, the original inhabitants, for they were not Europeans, women for they were not men, and the poor and illiterate who could not vote – even if they would be called-on to do the fighting in the war of independence.
But it was in Europe that the declaration of independence raised an epidemic of enthusiasm – for the distance of an ocean erased the bound between reality and myth – a myth that, in Europe, had an almost pre-Marxian ring, without the sting of a class struggle.
Here are two sample extracts of Europe’s view of America in the last quarter of the 18th century.
A journalist from Brussels wrote,
“They say that in Virginia, the members chosen to establish the new government, assembled in a peaceful wood, removed from the sight of the people, in an enclosure prepared by nature with banks of grass, and that in this sylvan spot they deliberated on who should preside over it.”
While a Frenchman, steeped in the renewed cult of the Roman Republic and the new fashion of all things Roman, described a session of the American Congress as follows,
“The day when Washington resigned his command in the hall of Congress, a crown set with jewels had been placed on the book of the Constitution. Suddenly, Washington seized the crown, broke it, and threw the pieces before the assembled people. How petty does the ambitious Caesar seem before this heroic American.”
Nevertheless, the Frenchman’s description of the American Congress is no more unrealistic than, for example, today’s CNN’s renditions, omissions and interpretations of current events.
A Washington who refuses to be a king is more real than an American prompted by Russia to vote for Trump rather than Hillary – a tale that CNN and others still peddle with shameless obtuseness, insulting contempt for their audience, and uncaring transgression of the bounds of probability.
Yet, in the historic utopian enthusiasm for the American Revolution we sense the psychological discomfort of Europeans, their yearning to live in a better country that would recognize the higher aspirations of her citizens. We equally sense the moral rejection of existing European society – which was the ultimate cause of the (French) revolution, however eventually questionable the results of that revolution proved to be.
Eighteen century’s scholars-of-the-road and readers of pamphlets believed that in Europe talent was a futile gift, whereas in America the most honest and the most respectful was also the greatest and most respected, without reference to birth or rank. In America there were (supposed to be) none of the social injustices that weighed heavily in Europe, not because they were getting heavier, but because people had become aware of them.
Europe’s idealized America had erased artificial distinctions among men. As a German professor wrote in 1776, “The Americans are the most fortunate people on the whole earth, at least among civilized nations. They do not even know the names of the many burdens borne by subjects in Europe.”
There were some who tried to correct the most absurd ideas about America, then circulating in Europe – Jefferson for example, when he lived in Paris as ambassador of the United States. But some Europeans still preferred dreams to reality, or perhaps understood that, to affect reality, only dreams can furnish the striking material.
A Frenchman listening to Jefferson’s admonitions on the imagined America, allegedly said, “Sir, you wish to destroy this enchantment? Cruel man, even if it were an illusion, would you still dissipate it? It would be dear to us. It would be useful in consoling the man of virtue.”
A clear case where the plodding citizen, the budding philosopher and the frustrated intellectual had allowed their imagination to give shape to forms of things unknown, by giving them a local habitation in the realm of wonderland.
It was frustration translated into boundless hope. A feeling, still, that produced a significant discontinuity in the philosophy of history, and the belief that the American Revolution marks an enormous turning point in the entire history of the human race.
Beliefs and traditions have long tails. Those interested in the origins of beliefs may trace the often-quoted “American Exceptionalism” to the mythical perception of the Founding Fathers, as imagined from across the pond. Even allowing that it is easy to entertain a false opinion of one’s own excellence, and that a questionable claim of national superiority may serve excellently as a transient expedient in a campaign of pre-electoral popularity.
In truth, when the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they replaced the old with a new authority, the old monarchy-inspired ruling class with a new republican ruling class, resting on property, social distinction, and very quickly on heredity too, as much as the old one had done.
But then what does “the pursuit of happiness” mean or meant then, besides being a good-sounding lexical tool? For the “pursuit of happiness” replaced the “the protection of property,” a principle implicitly assumed, though temporarily moved to back-stage, behind the curtain of decency and away from the ostentation of impudence.
The answer is ‘little’ unless, perhaps, we briefly meditate on an overlooked difference – namely, the difference between the laws of biology and those of economy.
In economy, the fundamental principle of operation is competition. In biology the fundamental principle is what experts call symbiotic resonance. That is, all the components of the human body, to work well together, must be in sympathetic resonance with each other.
Illness, broadly speaking, is a state when the resonance among biologic protagonists is altered and disrupted.
But economy has built itself with laws different from biology. With economy the fundamental principle is competition, which is the exact contrary of resonance.
Such fundamental dichotomy is the source of the social pathologies we are prone to lament, and from which some seek partial relief in the mythology of the Founding Fathers.
We will not touch here on the two cherished doctrines of classical economics – that the self-interest of the capitalist coincides with the interests of the community, and that the competitive system provides the dynamics of economic progress.
According to Marx, humanity is still in a prehistoric psychological state. To create a proper humanity, its components must resonate among themselves. A regime based on resonance among humans would mirror the requirements of biology.
In a competition-based system – now risen to the level of unrestrained, neo-liberal, reactionary, militaristic turbo-capitalism – the problem of health and happiness at large can never be properly addressed.
Furthermore, the spokesmen of content know very well that the substance must not be allowed in the way of the shadow – it’s a cardinal commandment of politics. And sundry regime psychologists can invent fine-sounding verbal palliatives (and actual pills), as defensive countermeasures. But pills and palliatives are worse than useless when, for example, applied to a patient who finds himself fired from the company operating in a competitive model.
This is in no way an indirect apology for Marx’ theories. For when Marxist self-styled practitioners put his theories into practice, in the 1917 Russian Revolution, the result was a regime where the state became the supreme capitalist – a solution appealing perhaps to some, and to the unreasoning phantasy of others, but unlikely to mirror the principles of symbiotic biology.
Let’s now return to the Founding Fathers and to what they founded. The original Founding Fathers are those who signed the Declaration of Independence. Are the Founding Fathers of Independence also the Founding Fathers of the Constitution?
No mostly, yes in part. For only six individuals signed both documents. Those who only drafted and signed the Constitution were ‘framers’ rather than ‘fathers.’
However, in the current currents of this world, many refer to the Founding Fathers for support of their point of view and for disparaging comparisons with today’s politicians and their actions. In this context the distinction between ‘Fathers’ and ‘Framers’ is irrelevant. ‘Founding Fathers’ in practice means, “the fathers of the nation and/or framers of the Constitution, who would say what I say and think as I do, if they were to come back to life.” A proposition naturally considered a tale by those who do not share the view of the critic.
Given the sanctioned narrative that America was seeking independence from tyrannical Britain, actual perusal of the records suggests a less idealistic picture. John Jay, one of the six that signed both the Declaration and the Constitution said, long after the war, “A great many people in those days were not what they seemed; nor what they are generally believed to have been.”
Considering that Jay himself handsomely benefited from independence, in remuneration and honors, there is little reason to doubt his statement.
Prior to the start of the actual war, orators stirred the crowds with exhortation about dying for freedom – with others doing the dying, of course.
For, as never before, so many Americans enjoyed the opportunity of getting rich quickly. Contractors, speculators and swindlers exploited the need of provisions and tools of war for a quick profit. When a ship anchored at port, the speculating patriots quickly bought the cargo and stored it until prices reached the desired level.
The soldier in the field was the principal victim. In his writings Washington recorded,
“Such a dearth of public spirit, and want of virtue, and speculation, a fertility in all the low arts to obtain advantage, of one kind or another, I never saw before and pray God I may never witness again.” And, “Could I have foreseen what I have, and I am likely to experience, no consideration upon earth should have induced me to accept this command.”
Business support for the American cause was mixed. From the merchants’ point of view, the war was being fought to end the British interference in their business. Hence why should they accept meddling from a new government? Trading with the enemy, smuggling and other illicit forms were common business practice. A British officer wrote in his diary, “Almost open trade is carried on from here with the rebels… Passionately anxious for gold and silver, they (the Americans) brought us cattle and other provisions.”
And in an externation echoing the truths of Monsieur de Lapalisse, the American General Green declared that, “The merchants are generally a people whose good is gain, and their whole plan of policy is to bring public measures to square with the private interests.”
Someone may have pointed out to the General that he was fighting for the “inalienable right” of the “protection of property,” – the property of the merchants in the instance. But historically, logic has rarely agreed with politics.
Through the War of Independence, recorded or reported instances of peculation rather than patriotism are so many that their listing would quickly annoy even a patient reader. We may safely conclude that the type of freedom that Americans were prompted to die for, was another tale.
Which is why, perhaps, Dr. Johnson said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. And even more sourly, “They (the Americans), ought to be thankful for anything we allow them, short of hanging.”
The debates and the politics that led to the framing of the Constitution bring better to the fore what the war of independence was all about.
For when the fighting ended, a conflict developed in the American camp between moderates and radicals, between the conservative and the party of change. It was a revolution after the revolution was over.
To one group belonged the early revolutionary leaders, who went to war to get independence. The leader of this group was Thomas Jefferson. They liked the Articles of Confederation, agreed upon during the war, because they embodied the conviction that the greatest political gain in the revolution was the independence of the several states. The weaker the confederation, the more independent the states were bound to be.
Opposing the radical independentists, as we could call them, was a group of men who, originally, came into the revolution more reluctantly – the Federalists. The leader of this group was Alexander Hamilton, whose image daily shows up in the 10-dollar bills of the readers. They wanted a central government with power to coerce the individual states and their citizens.
We could say that they were men of principle and men of property, whose property provided their major principle.
Merchants, speculators and businessmen of all kinds readily agreed with the Federalists, considering that the boom of the war was followed by the bust of peace.
Furthermore, thousands of small farmers, tradesmen and craftsmen were faced with the loss of everything they owned. Tax farmers and debt collectors, accompanied by guards, would not accept in payment the “Continental Dollar” issued during the war, nor the Certificates issued to the soldiers. Collectors demanded hard metal coins, unavailable to the ex soldiers. Whereupon they would then seize the debtors’ cattle and agricultural implements.
In the fall of 1786 a group of Massachusetts farmers attempted a rebellion, led by Daniel Shay, a war veteran, wounded during the war of Independence. For the record and for his bravery, he had even received a sword directly from the hands of the ubiquitous and transcontinental French hero Lafayette.
Merchants and bankers soon financed a professional army that quickly put down the rebellion of the ragged and scraggy. It was this rebellion that prompted Jefferson, from his position as American minister in Paris, to say that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed form time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Shay’s “little rebellion” profoundly influenced the making of the Constitution. James Madison said that the shock waves, produced by this ‘blind lurch towards radicalism,’ contributed more to the Constitution than any of the political or economic inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation.
Relieved at the escape from a however improbable anarchy, the representatives of America’s new aristocracy assembled in Philadelphia to form the famous “more perfect union,” enshrined in the Constitution. Proving that the rich and famous can even get away with lexical errors, along with murder, crimes and misdemeanors, as proven by recent history. And the Founding Fathers equally succeeded in making the nation safe for profits and property.
For in “The Federalist” papers, written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (later president of the United States) we find this interesting statement,
“Unequal distribution of property is inevitable, and from it contending factions will rise in the state. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.
The government will reflect the contending factions, for they will have their separate principles and the sentiments. But the supreme danger will arise from the fusion of certain interests into an overbearing majority, which would be the majority of the landless.”
Had Madison been born 50 years later, instead of ‘landless’ he would have used the word ‘proletariat.’
How was the danger to be avoided? – asked The Federalist, having the answer at hand.
“Since the contending classes cannot be eliminated and their interests are bound to be reflected in politics, the only way lies in making it difficult for the contending interests to fuse into a majority, and in balancing one group against the other. Public views are to be refined and enlarged (a euphemism for ‘thrown into the toilet’) through the medium of a chosen body of citizens.” It is redundant to say that the “chosen body” meant the rich and famous and/or the minions at their beck and service.
There you have it, the philosophy, the principle and the rationale for all reactionary policies and subsequent wars, including the most recent, where the “public views” have been “refined and enlarged” by the rich, the famous and the Zionists. An America divided between patriotism in the service of the captains of war, and commerce in the service of the captains of banking.
Indeed, the reasons alleged by the Federalists were no doubt convincing to those who were ready to be so convinced. But those reasons were and are, after all, more plausible at first sight than on reflection – if we only just attempt at least a minor reconciliation between the laws of biology and the laws of current economics.
Of course, the spokesmen of content will deny that the Constitution was designed to protect the rich. But the reason for such denial is the need of it.
Few can look into the seeds of time and say which grain will grow and which will not. But we can speculate that if the Jeffersonian views, based on the Articles of Confederation, had prevailed, America would be different. How and to what extent, is of course, anybody’s guess.
Still, the sanctimonious reasons printed in “The Federalist” to justify the predominance of the rich and famous, can equally be added to the file of tales referred to in the title.
The deeper dilemma, whether those who succeeded in destroying the Articles of Confederation were “Founding Fathers” or lieutenants of the power of darkness, can only be answered depending on individual convictions.
We may conclude this brief historical excursus by returning to a persistent and unanswered question, embodied in the Declaration of Independence. The document enshrined, as we saw, the right to the pursuit of happiness, but failed to describe what happiness actually is or consists of.
Most of us would equally hesitate to give an answer – hence we can absolve the Founding Fathers for having given none. And we may reflect that much of our life must be passed in affairs considerable only by their frequent occurrence. And much of the pleasure that our condition allows, must be produced by giving elegance to trifles, be it the nurturing of a rose, the reading of a book, or even the implementation of an appetizing recipe.
A prospect unlikely to trigger enthusiasm or exhilaration in many, but perhaps consonant with the views of those who maintain that every human is but a quintessence of dust, randomly assembled from minute particles of ancient stars.
‘Few can look into the seeds of time and say which grain will grow and which will not. But we can speculate that if the Jeffersonian views, based on the Articles of Confederation, had prevailed, America would be different. How and to what extent, is of course, anybody’s guess.”
Here lies a novel, for someone willing to write it!
And if Jefferson had succeeded in disabusing the Europeans, and get them to stop idealising America, foolishly thinking it “had erased artificial distinctions among men”, then European history might have taken a very different.
As it is, Europeans still view America through the 1776 lenses of the German professor quoted above: “They do not even know the names of the many burdens borne by subjects in Europe.”
I for one have never heard a European talk of the 40+ millions of Americans on food stamps – Trump now intends to give them food parcels instead, so they don’t use the “stamps” to buy what they need or what they like: Big Daddy knows what’s good for them, you see. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/)
[The current Big Daddy has now been declared God’s Chosen One by US evangelicals, following a “divine revelation” to a firefighter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZVPcKXxa-Q) – after which the bible itself was found to confirm Trump as the chosen one -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl7p4f7NKXI (amusingly, Hillary is here equated to Jezebel…]
Clearly, Europe refuses to see the true face of America, and, like the interlocutor of Jefferson, prefers to cling to the myth of the “Exceptional Nation”, where all have attained supreme happiness, and which therefore has a God-given right to rule the world…
I, as one of many who were born and grew up in Europe (I do not equate it to the Enslavement called the EU) can answer your question, or statement if you will. It’s the hollywood. The brainwashing of the masses went to a higher level in order to make people “mental slaves of America”. The brainwashing is so great, that any one who tries to suggest drop the shackles of the EU, fails.
Keep the bull’s eyes coming, Jimmy.
The opening of this can of worms is long overdue. Lundberg’s “Cracks in the Constitution” is a great place to start. Hamilton was in favor of lifetime appointments for Senators, so like our Supreme Court justices today. The “Bill of Rights” was a pacifier designed to bring in states who resisted the union. Pennsylvania and many others could have made their own countries otherwise. This may still happen, as our “union” is pretty illusory and shambolic without a MSM convincing us that all’s well for #1.
Hamilton’s final Report on Manufacturing repeatedly clarifies that the wealth of the nation is “the productive power of labor” (as opposed to East Indian Co employee Adam Smith who wrote that land and ground rent was the wealth of a nation. It was Hamilton’s theory’s that influenced Fredrick List who further elaborated on Catherine idea that “creative labor” was the true wealth of the nation. There historical evidence that Marx probably plagerized List concerning his theories on labor power. Hamilton is a national treasure for any American who really knows his history.
In theory those things are OK. In reality, two things are in use real estate tax, and the BS about the labour being the most important for the company. Labour, One day you tell the employees that they are most valued asset of the company (which is the truth) and the next day some bean counter comes in and says we have to reduce your payroll budget. Next they say we are going to reduce manufacturing costs by farming it our off shore. The truth is that by offshoring you are losing your most important treasure, which is the knowledge of the product. I have a problem with privatization. Privatization is really aiming at destroying employee benefits and pensions. But my argument is this: The guy who gets your order has to get paid for that any way, so you paying for it now thinking that you fooled the guy, the only fool is the guy who farms his work out.
With all respect, it was Thomas Malthus who was the chief economist for the British East India Company. Adam Smith was a university professor in Glasgow and later commissioner of customs in Scotland for the British government.
The Founding Fathers captured happiness in my opinion.
Happy government is a balance between discipline and free will (actions freely chosen).
The Founding Fathers struck that balance, and now we’ve lost it.
Generally, in rankings of american presidents, buchanan occupied last place. But in this year’s “Presidents and Executive Politics Presidential Greatness Survey”, that gay confederate sympathizer managed to move up one place. The new lowest of the low? Guess ;-D
Trump Ranks as Worst in Expert Presidential Greatness Survey
https://sputniknews.com/us/201802201061818312-trump-worst-presidential-survey/
“Donald J. Trump makes his ranking debut at the very bottom of the list. His average rating is 12.34, which is nearly three points lower than [15th US President] James Buchanan (15.09), who previously occupied the lowest rank,” the survey revealed.”
The survey:
https://sps.boisestate.edu/politicalscience/files/2018/02/Greatness.pdf
BTW, besides being a gay confederate sympathizer, buchanan was also an important official in the freemasons. I’ve seen no evidence of trump being gay or a freemason, though. A confederate? Perhaps. A zionazi, definitely.
Just excellent Jimmy!
Truly excellent and important analysis. Thank you.
Reminds me of the movie National Treasure. Here’s was an old, short review of mine about it:
National Treasure
or
‘Goonies for Adults’
Note: Major spoilers — don’t read if you don’t want to ruin the movie for yourself.
The question “Would you sacrifice the life of a loved one to save a piece of paper?” is answered in the affirmative, and this mutual willingness to kill a loved one so as to rescue a symbol helps bring them together.
Let’s see. The Knights Templars, a group of rape-and-pillage ex-Crusaders who became bankers to royalty, eventually morphed into wealthy white landowning Freemasons who founded the United States of America. On the back of the the country’s founding document is a map that leads to some treasure.
So the secret meaning of the Declaration of Independence, a document created by propertied white male freemasons, is that it’s ultimately a map leading to incredible treasure, one that uses a putative democracy to transmute the plunder from heathen lands into mansions and Ferraris for those who know how to read it right.
Sounds right to me — Bruckheimer has produced his first documentary, one ideally suited for our time.
Excellent comment. The movie glorifies freemasons galore. Just Like the Dan Brown books, which not only glorify this occult but whitewash it.
The deist patriarchs, their seed, their subjects, are the renegades of Daniel 8.
It was a different existence back then in the 18th century. Now in the dawn of the 21st century, those ideas formulated back then don’t mean much or has lost its value among Americans (or Americans have decided to discard them.) A more realistic view of modern American politics for me is one stated by Sam Giancana, former mob boss of Chicago, who answered a question asking his thoughts on government, “The government and us are cut from the same cloth.” Both parties conduct themselves like mafia families than Democrats or Republicans. They have at their fingers a limitless supply of money, either taxed or borrowed, which they use to enrich their true constituents, being those who contribute to their campaign, and think very little of the average citizen, using them only for re-election, or for cannon fodder, having them fight wars in the name of democracy (or oil.) These politicians are now into casinos, gambling establishments that were once run by the Mafia. In some parts of the country, prostitution is legal, or if not, they look the other way, if it benefits them some how. Now with the legalization of illicit drugs, more money is to be made at the expense of citizenry and survival of the country. And last but not least, let’s not forget the newspapers and media, which they have in their pockets, or Rolodex, who are ready at anytime whip up a good story or two, about some bogey man, far away in some distant land who messed around with the citizen’s ability to vote. Al Capone would be really jealous.
I read somewhere that the only difference between the Goverment and the Street Mobs and/or Mafias it is that the Government have better Weapons and organization. Otherwise they are basically the same thing.
every passing day I am more convinced that this is quite the case.
Jose,
Although you make a good point, I will play the devil’s advocate and say this: JM looks at this from today’s environment, where at least some of us if not most have semi-decent education giving us the opportunity to somewhat understand the word games used to play with our minds.
As Al Capone once said “I never knew until I got into this racket how many crooks there were dressed in expensive suits and talking with affected accents.” They are nothing more than what Capone and his peers considered “upperworld” gangsters. Gus Russo, in his fascinating book The Outfit: The Role of Chicago’s Underworld in the Shaping of Modern America, continually draws parallels between underworld gangsters and upperworld ones, referred to in everyday parlance as “white collar criminals.” His summary is trenchant:
Thanks, Jimmie, for the peek at the groundbreaking of Hotel California (you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave).Construction continued, as we know, until 1861,when Abe Lincoln put the lock on the door.
And, hey, by my count there must be at least 28 of us :).
Yes, Woogs. The 13th amendment ended forced slavery, making it voluntary for all (constitutional) believers. And the volunteers keep coming, eager to trade away our God-given “biology” (Nature) to receive monetized benefits granted by serving magic words on paper. Such a deal.
I was referring to Lincoln’s disabusing us of the notion that we were a voluntary union ruled by consent of the governed.
Thanks, Abe.
Probably, one of the very best things I have read here.
Chapeau! Mr Moglia. an Excelent Piece.
A good movie on USA history is: “The Shining” by Stanley Kubrick (1980)… the snake is moving. Qaerendo Invenies.
More nonsense. Anyone can take excerpts from this or that individual in support of his/her view. I find it interesting that those who choose to knock the ideals laid out by the Framers, often overlook people like John Adams, the 2nd President of the US and a major driver towards Independence, who sought slavery to be abolished and who refused having a slave even when offered one as a gift. Regarding slavery, it was a bone of contention to the Declaration of Independence. This doesn’t mean that they all accepted it. The idealists had no choice but to accept it in order to move ahead with Independence or it would not have happened. Another point left out is that the main Framers saw a standing army as a tool for foreign ambitions in the form of a Napoleon and sought only a navy to defend access to the US. The fact that the ideals have been thrown out to form one of the worst Empires ever on the planet doesn’t reflect on those who set out to live those lofty ideals laid out in the Declaration. As in every human endeavor, there will always be those who seek only fortune for themselves at the expense of others. Today’s US is just another example of what happens when those fortune hunters and psychopaths among us accumulate and fortify their power.
Must be a slow news day here at the Saker.
Perfect Timing, Jimmie.
Woman outside Independence Hall, Philadelphia circa 1787 to an aged Benjamin Franklin, who needed assistance walking in and out of the sessions of the Constitutional Convention:
“What sort of government have you given us, Dr Franklin??”
Dr Franklin:
“A Republic, madam. If you can keep it.”
Poor old Uncle Sam has deservedly become a whipping boy since that time of myth, reality, misconceptions and lost opportunities for billions of human beings affected by our not keeping it.
.From an ideal icon of a bye gone age Uncle has fallen into the moral gutter. Even us “Muricans” are disgusted and revolted by his descent into crime, violence, pedophilia, satanism…….and worst of all EMPIRE.
Carl Rove can gloat, “We’re an Empire now…….(and all you poor idiot subjects can do is study what criminality we pull off next….basically) ” and brainwashed, blue pilled Americans just sit there like inmates in an insane asylum, numbed out on their meds, with nary a thought of running the A-hole out of town on a rail.
He’s still around somewhere. But I will grant you that more Americans are slowly awakening and becoming increasingly leery of that round-faced clown and a host of others like him.
Everyone likes to think that they are the good guys. And the truth is, there is potential for good in nearly every human being born. But then it gets complicated, fast.
The truth is pretty obvious. The Founders and Framers were neither gods nor angels. For the most part, immigrants to North America in their day, or a century or two later were a whole lot more lucky….than they were “good”.
(Jose Garcia, who buys the drugs, pays for the hookers, goes to The Cleaners (Vegas and Atlantic City), and gets turned into a moron watching the idiot box several hours a day? Your and my complaining, impotent neighbors. That’s who. They empower and facilitate the AZ takeover of a physical/logistical base of still worldwide importance by the most evil forces on the planet because…THEY have had potential for good…that they have largely wasted. And they are poor victims of their waste…..and some very deep operations by the most evil people on the planet…..to make them that way.)
Less than sixty days ago I was a visitor to Mount Vernon (Washington’s Virginia estate), Monticello (Jefferson’s) and the far more modest abode of Madison. All in Virginia.
Luck! The first two (well, their fathers, perhaps….) grabbed what you would grab, if you were so lucky: The High Ground…..360 degree views all around. Mount and Monti. First come, first served.
But there was a world of difference between George and his aide de camp Alexander and Thomas and James M who said, “If men were angels, government would not be necessary.”
He and a lot of Virginians (I suggeast we focus on THAT state …… and New York for reasons of time contraints here) were certainly “No Angels.”
He got that right!
And I am going to assert something controversial about James Madison that I hope will ruffle a lot of feathers and get some here including Jimmie to drink deeper draughts of readily available history:
Madison was no “principle Framer” of the Constitution. He was the guy that took the notes at the Constitutional Convention…putting him in perfect position to benefit from myth-making…..defintely NOT the one whose ideas won out!
But some of them did a damned good job, actually, with the Consitution. And the Key Man (Washington) was a Virginian….but his aide de camp (Hamilton) was a New Yorker.
So I’m going to (friendly….I like Moglia’s style……Nepoti ….illegitimate “nephews”….ie sons of fornicating popes, foisted off on Papal brothers to raise….THAT’s a “keeper”!) challenge Jimmie and all of us to go a little deeper into discernment of who was better among those founders and framers…..and who was worse.
Clue: James Madison may not have been the worst, but he wasn’t very good, either.
And neither was Thomas Jefferson. Oh, Jefferson could write. But he was also a coward and hypocrite, which no one can say about Hamilton. Tom ran from Monticello when British troops approached and never did anything with arms or blood but glorify others shedding it. Hamilton, besides being picked by Washington, as his letter writer and aide during the Revolutionary War, served at the end of that war brilliantly as an artillery captain in battles WON.
Americans full of myths and prejudices may reject the above paragraph. I don’t care. It’s very hard for any people to say, “I was wrong.” ……but, let’s face it: Americans have been more wrong in their judgments on a lot of things! How else do people who Lady Luck has handed so much….blow it so “Big Time”….lose the Republic and become a Stinking Pile of Moral Dog Shit Empire that doesn’t run Carl Rove out on a rail????
I care more about the judgment of Russians and Chinese, now ascending to a position to perhaps do a world of good, in Present and Future History, if there discernment about these Issues I will soon follow up on, than I do about prejudiced Americans clinging to their errors of moral judgment, refusing to utter the three most powerful words in the English Language:
“I was wrong!”
mod-to note: Caps removed
“Madison was no “principle Framer” of the Constitution. He was the guy that took the notes at the Constitutional Convention…putting him in perfect position to benefit from myth-making…..defintely NOT the one whose ideas won out!”
Madison is a confusing sort to me. He contorted himself in The Federalist Papers then turned around not many years later and wrote the Virginia Resolutions.
Now you say he was essentially a stenographer at Philadelphia?
Will the real James Madison please stand up!!
The so-called American Revolution was nothing of the kind. It was a rebellion financed and controlled by the Rothschild’s banking empire. George Washington and others were freemasons in Rothschild’s pay. Until 1776 the colonies were under the control of the British crown, and after 1776 the so-called United States of America was under Rothschild’s control. It still is, fighting for the benefit of the Roithschild’s, who control the US Fed. What historians like to ignore is the fact that after the US was created, there was mass emigration of immigrants (“Americans”) from the US back to Europe. The writers of the day estimate that there was not a single English town or village which did not see the arrival of US emigrants, who refused to become “Americans”.
The American Revolution was based on the English Civil War of the 17th century. The Zionist bankers in Holland used their agent in England, Oliver Cromwell, to start a rebellion. It succeeded. After that the power of the English Crown was placed under Zionist control, who later on created the Bank of England. To the Zionists the island of Britain was just perfect for their globalist agenda, as they got themselves an island fortress.
In 1776 George Washington took over the role of Oliver Cromwell, while in 1789 Danton and Robespierre did the same thing in France. We also had Rothschild’s provoked revolutions of 1830 and 1848. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a copy of the previous ones. The Russian equivalents of Oliver Cromwell were Lenin and Trotsky, both being freemasons and Illuminati.
The American Revolution found inspiration in ancient Rome and Greece, even though both were slave societies, as were the American colonies. The American Revolution was unique, as it used geography to create a non existent nation, the American “nation”, even though there is no such thing as the American language. However, this was unimportant, as the Rothschild’s needed a precedent for further world wide subversion. For example, Korea is divided between North and South Korea, even there was no reason for this, as we have the same people residing in both. Vietnam was divided between North and South Vietnam, again without any reason. We now have such absurd creations as the Bosnian nation, even though there is no such thing as the Bosnian language. Yes, you will find the Bosnian “language” in official use, even though it’s nothing more than the Serbian language under a different name. We also have the non-existent “Kosovar’ nation, which does not even use the non-existent “Kosovar” language. It’s like asking Austrians to speak the Austrian “language”, when in fact they speak the German.
The US has fought wars during 93 % of it’s existence. Who benefited ? Bankers and corporations. And the ordinary people ? They ended up working, paying taxes, financing the wars and sending their sons to fight the wars, as they are still doing.
The US is being set up for one last military confrontation, the candidates being Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. The bankers will use both the US and NATO for these confrontations. Unfortunately for the bankers, things are not going according to plan. They are at least some 20 years behind schedule, hoping initially to repeat their methods of 1917 in subverting both Russia and China and then moving in. It did not happen. The opposite is happening, with Russia and China on the rise and the US facing financial implosion, if not political and geographic. The same applies to their European creation, the EU. Since the situation has changed, it’s going to be very interesting to see how this banker globalist strategy is going to end.
Finally, I don’t advise Washington to force Poroshenko to start a new war in the Dobass. On Sunday we had demonstrations in Kiev against Poroshenko. Any “victorious” war against the Donbass will see a reverse maidan in Kiev, with yet another US geopolitical defeat.
If we do our work right, B.F this banker globalist strategy is going to end with a whimper…… not a bang.
As the unfooled simply become too numerous for the old methods of mass mind control to work any longer.
But I am certain you are throwing the baby out with the bath water in order to simplify a much more complex situation for purposes of brevity.
It’s more complicated, IMHO.
And over-simplifying it in a way that leaves the ordinary person here feeling overwhelmed and impotent as a mere spectator and likely victim…….WHO does that serve???
Obviously the net migration here was overwhelmingly on the plus side…though a few scurried back to the more tightly controlled societies of Europe. And those who came here, were quite lucky…..and, for the most part enjoyed much better prospects here, than in Oligarch-Stifled Europe.
The problem is when you rely on luck too much and let good luck convince you that it is just fine to rest on your laurels and congratulate yourself, and convince yourself that you are much better than people inhabiting other regions of this planet. In that case, material advantages, within a century or two at most…..can lead to….your Luck Running Out.
Unless you (fellow ‘Muricans) wake up and smell the coffee PDQ. And stop thinking a sky high stock market means you are safe. You and “your money” are definitely NOT safe. Yet.
I really enjoyed your article Jimmy.
According to Joseph Campbell, health & wealth, progeny and victory over my enemies define Chakra happiness.
So Chairman Mao was correct when he said: “Happiness comes from the barrel of a gun”.
The ‘Declaration of Independence’ was the call and template for the mondial masonic revolution, drawn by the notorious masons Franklin and Jefferson. It went beyond the limited aims of the colonists to sever their ties with England, by introducing the fuzzy open ended notions of ‘equality’ and ‘pursuit of happiness’.
These notions, although formulated in drafts and other declarations, were always qualified.
E.g. in the ‘Virginia Declaration of Rights’:
“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety”.
“We hold these truths to be sacred and un-deniable…” Franklin changed it to, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…”
Men are equally created “Free and independent (which certainly means autonomous)”, ‘inherent rights of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity’, does not mean ‘unalienable Rights’ (which would become ‘universal rights’ for which the American Government was instituted to secure for all mankind- sorry ‘humankind’).
Don’t forget that Jefferson wrote with his ‘brother’ mason Lafayette, the ‘Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen’, when directing the French revolutionaries to the ‘assault of the Bastille’ from his residence of Ambassador to France.
Another Anonymus
This will be rather longish and I fully expect readers with short attention spans to bail out before reaching the midpoint of the two links. But I am just fine with less than 25 readers. I’ll take 5 good ones that can concentrate, any day.
I am going to draw on the research of one Robert Ingraham, who I have known, going back 35 years.
Here you have a person who is not the typical historiographer, writing for “the Winners”. He and the supporters that contribute to his efforts have not won…..yet. That’s point # 1. And that allows Robert to discover things that academics in history departments are NOT encouraged to discover by past Establishment “winners”. So comfortable tenure becomes a higher priority to them than dangerous truth. Plain Fact of the Matter!
Point # 2 is that after slogging it out for nearly 40 years, Mr Ingraham has good reasons to believe that victory is possible. His reasons for feeling that way are probably similar, but not identical to Saker’s reasons for saying “We’re winning, guys.”
Now here’s where I am going to lose 90% of you, right out of the gate:
The positive link, in terms of the winning ingredient between 1776 and 2018, bridging 242 years is a very poorly understood figure in both American History and Economic Science by the name of……Alexander Hamilton…..who was killed, physically destroyed by the reigning World Establishment of his day.
And since the time that he was killed, his ideas have been obscured, misrepresented, slandered and so forth.
And yet, I will assert, without lengthy proof here that they live today! Especially in the World Landbridge policy known as One Belt One Road in China, supported by Russia and many other nations eager to unyolk themselves from the Death Throes of The Empire.
The two links featuring Mr Ingraham that I will provide, one a written article, the other a lecture on you tube prove that point far better than I could given10 times as many pages written or hours making such a case by video.
Not only has he done his homework, through loving devotion to the cause of destroying Empire forever, but he succeeds, IMHO in doing something you rarely see in such work: Tying it consistently, without contradictions, across one quarter of a millenium of world and US history.
Now, I will tell you a little secret: The Complete Story of Everything relating to anything….including the “Founding Fathers” and Framers is not possible to be known!
Get over it! Kurt Godel proved that not even the theorems of Arithmetic can be completed, much to the chagrin of Alfred Lord Whitehead and Lord Bertrand Russell (the Most Evil Man of the Twentieth Century—who advocated the atomic bombing of the USSR…..in order to establish World Government and permanent enslavement of Humanity to Oligarchism…..).
But what is possible is “consistency”….ie non-contradiction in your causal principles.
And there is where contradiction pops up all over the place in Nominalist nonsense such as labelling every Jew or every Mason or every Catholic or every American or every Englishman or every Russian as ipso facto “evil” or “on the wrong side” because of their non-youness.
This sort of egoistic, nominalist childishness is rampant, mentally debilitating….and exploited to the hilt by the enemies of humanity.
Instead, look for real, living principles of morality in action when evaluating lives like Alexander Hamilton’s.
Then, it will not be difficult to see through the consternation of Jeffersons, Madison and other Virginians who were no friends of fellow Virginian George Washington, by the time of his first day in office and his selection of Hamilton as First Treasury Secretary. They were no freinds of the British Empire either. But unlike Washington (who freed his slaves in his last will and testament) and Hamilton (who abhorred slavery from the time of his youth in Nevis and St Kitts in the Caribbean they favored a Slave Empire of their own!
And there is the rub: Egotism, greed and hypocrisy. I am perhaps a foot taller than Alexander Hamilton was, but those Virginia “Gentlemen” all agreed that in politcal arguments of principle, their opponent Hamilton was, in Jefferson’s words: “A Colossus” whose arguments they could not ever hope to match.
Here’s the gist of the matter, and stick with me New Yorkers, because you will like this: The Father of this Country (unlike the tragic Robert E Lee) chose New Yorkers (including most prominently Alexander Hamilton) over The Slave Power of his native Virginia….and Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, et al.
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/educ/hist/2015/0509-manhattan_vs_virginia/c.html
Introduction by Robert Ingraham:
April 20, 2015—”There are myths and counter-myths surrounding the early history of the United States of America. It is often difficult for the mere observer to discern what was actually going on, and what the nature of the battle was. This document will demonstrate that from the very beginning, this nation was defined by a titanic war between two opposing forces, opponents who differed not merely on practical political issues, but on the very nature of the human species itself. On the one side was the New York leadership who created the United States Constitution and defined the mission of the United States during the Presidency of George Washington. Against them were arrayed the Virginia combine of the Southern “Slave Power,” an anti-human aristocracy who were determined that it would be the slavocracy of the South who would control the future destiny of the nation. This is the story of that battle.”
It’s not an exceedingly long article.
However, I also recommend the video lecture to get an up-close evaluation of the seriousness of this individual, this author of the article linked above:
https://youtu.be/pDjSvFzNr7Y?t=1180
Finally, if you get hrough major portions of either the article, or the video, and still see zero connection between non-mason Alexander Hamilton (and Grandmaster Freemason George Washington) on the one hand, and One Belt One Road on the other, and like the latter, but abhor the former two figures and their Manhattan Anti-Slavery Federalist collaborators, you flunk the historical consistency test.
Because I can assure you Hamilton lives in OBOR ….and with some time and effort that connection can be proven, in unbroken fashion, across a quarter millenium of Human History.
Finally to win over Dennis to the Consistent Anti-Empire Side, Alexander Hamilton was not a god either, nor was Washington. However, there are only two instances of serious error in his short but astounding career, IMHO.
The last error, dueling Aaron Burr, who shot to kill, after Hamilton fired deliberately into the air, was fatal. It reminds me of the death of Alexander Pushkin.
The first error, his affair with Maria Reynolds, any human being with a heart can forgive, if they know the humble beginnings of his life, under the care of his mother Rachel, abandoned by Alexander’s father James Hamilton who she lived with after leaving a loveless mariage on the Island of Nevis.
Clearly Hamilton’s sympathy for his mother and likely political intrigue and acting by Maria Reynolds and her pimping husband James was part of his profiling and political undoing by…..The Slave Power of Virginia!
“In the summer of 1791, 23-year-old Maria Reynolds approached the married 34-year-old Alexander Hamilton in Philadelphia to request his help and monetary aid; she claimed her husband James had abandoned her. Hamilton did not have any money on his person, so he retrieved her address in order to deliver the funds in person. Once Hamilton arrived at the boarding house where Maria was lodging, she brought him upstairs and led him into her bedroom; he later recounted that “Some conversation ensued from which it was quickly apparent that other than pecuniary consolation would be acceptable.”
In November 1792 after James Reynolds was jailed for participation in a scheme involving unpaid back wages intended for Revolutionary War veterans, he used his knowledge about Hamilton’s sex affair to bargain his way out of his own troubles. Reynolds knew Hamilton would have to choose between revealing his affair with Maria or falsely admitting complicity to the charges. James Monroe, Abraham Venable and Frederick Muhlenberg were the first men to hear of this possible corruption within the nation’s new government and on 15 December 1792 decided to personally confront Hamilton with the information they had received, supported by the notes of Hamilton’s payments to Reynolds that Maria had given them to corroborate her husband’s accusations. Denying any financial impropriety, Hamilton revealed the true nature of his relationship with Maria Reynolds and her husband in all its unsavory details. He even turned over his letters from both Maria and James Reynolds.
Apparently convinced that Hamilton was not guilty of the charge of public misconduct, Monroe, Venable and Muhlenberg agreed not to make public the information and documents on the Reynolds Affair. Monroe and his colleagues assured Hamilton that the matter was settled. However, Monroe did send the letters to his close personal friend, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson and Hamilton were self-described nemeses, and five years after receiving the letters, Jefferson used the knowledge to start rumors about Hamilton’s private life. In that same year, 1797, when Hamilton no longer held the post of Secretary of the Treasury, the details of his relationship to Maria and James Reynolds came to light in a series of pamphlets authored by journalist James Thomson Callender. Included were copies of the documents Hamilton had furnished to the Monroe commission in December 1792. Hamilton confronted Monroe over the leakage of the supposedly confidential documents. Monroe denied any responsibility. Hamilton came very close to calling Monroe a liar, and Monroe retorted that Hamilton was a scoundrel and challenged him to a duel. The duel was averted by the intercession of none other than Aaron Burr, who years later would himself kill Hamilton in a duel.
The Constitution??
That was more Hamilton’s thinking than any other Founder,as Ingraham proves. And that The Virginia Combine of Slavery were more framers of Hamilton than of the actual Constitution and deadly adversaries of the real patriot Founders.
Jefferson was a skilled wordsmith and a far more flawed human being than the better New Yorkers around Hamilotn, Morris, Renselear, et al. The Virginia Founders, other than Washington, who chose the New Yorkers over his fellow Virginains and ended his life freinds with NONE of the famous ones…(.who were mostly greedy egoistic hypocrites and cowards like Jefferson, who ran from Monticello when British troops drew near and never took arms against the Empire….and only urged the spilling of “the blood of tyrants” on others…).
While Hamilton grew restless in the comparable safety of being aide de camp to Washington, and served bravely and brilliantly as captain of artillery in battles won near the end of the Revolutionary War, in the starkest comparison to Jefferson.
It may be difficult for Americans to overcome the fake news on Hamilton which many naive Americans have fallen victim to over many generations. No matter. His ideas are alive at least in OBOR today…….and on military record and humble beginnings, Russians who grasp the essential differences in courage and character between Hamilton and Jefferson are more than likely to be more discerning, as well, on that old, but still important score, additional background to their fundamental disagreements over what the essential essence of a human being is.
And if you can’t tell the Difference Between a National Bank and a Central Bank……well there’s no one that can help you there. And there are a lot of nominalist dupes that can’t!!
.