More than two years, realistically. When the French Revolution started, pretty much all Americans were behind it. As it gradually and then rapidly went off the rails, American almost unanimously abandoned it, but at considerably different times. Jefferson was shamefully slow to reject even the Terror.

Who will play Soros? Probably not a Semite.
Possibly a colour coded Ukrainian Zombie.

Jabba the Hutt is the obvious choice to play George Soros in “Soros the Musical”

Well, at least the play wasn’t at the Ford theater.

Democrat elites know that cities can thrive with immigrants but not with blacks.

So-called Diversity is really a plan to eclipse blacks with immigrants.

the burgeoning membership of the “rainbow coalition”.

The rainbow coalition is more like a CULT of hysterical, fascist, and anti-constitution victim cultist.

Occupy Wall Street inadvertently did some consciousness raising with their one and ninety nine meme. The Trump candidacy, again unintentionally, is bringing at least the white element of the working class toward a class identity. American Proles will remain a one legged man in an ass kicking contest until they achieve solidarity. Only the working class can help the working class.

I find your remarks quite refreshing. I seldom speak in this vein anymore. My countrymen are currently obsessed with race, gender, etc.. Demographics. It’s difficult even to imagine the American working class coming together across lines of race, sex, ethnicity, religion, etc. etc..

Palmerston deeply resented American independence. He was among those British elites who could not and would not ever forgive the Americans for hanging Major Andre. It should also be remembered that the power that fed the British empire was cotton and their ruthless attempts to enforce a near monopoly on textile production. They subjugated Egypt to control it’s cotton and the killed millions in India by dismantling and banning their own textile production. He was more than willing to contribute to tearing the American Republic apart in order to perpetuate Britain’s dominance and more importantly income in cotton and textiles.

P.S. I wrote a long piece on Hamilton myself back in 2011. It felt initially with my resentment of the idiot Glenn Beck and his continued disparaging of Hamilton and how it exposed his profound ignorance of both the nan and history.

http://theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com/2011/03/question-or-two-for-glenn-beck.html?m=0

What a breath of fresh air! I as well am a long time Hamiltonian and find myself in agreement with much of your piece. Hamilton was the quintessential American. Born in poverty in a foreign land, disparaged by the elites as a bastard all his life, but recognized as hard working, focused and driven by Washington from early on. It can be argued that Washington would not have been Washington without Hamilton.

The other driving force that culminated in the Civil War was of course taxation by tariffs. The South elites wanted all the benifits of modern industrialization but didn’t want any of that messy urbanization and immigration that came with it. Their stuborn insurance on client going to an agrarian system that the rest of the world was leaving behind came with a cost. That cost was tariffs.

They so presented the north that they would rather buy finished goods from Europe than the north, which would have gladly expanded production to feed southern demand but that would have also expanded northern political power.

This left the South between a rock and a hard place of their own manufacture. Pay the hated tariffs or industrialize themselves. Neither was acceptable to the plantation class.

The Federal government was going to raise revenue one way or another. The plantation class would have viewed income taxes just as much as they did tariffs.

The South wanted their cake and eat it too. That never ends well. If the idiot Booth had not assassinated Lincoln perhaps reconciliation would have gone differently. All arguments to the contrary but many on the north believed that it was the south that had created the war with their clinging to slavery and agrarianism. That it was capped of with a cowardly assassination led to vengence by the north and more resentments by the south. Ugly scabs that still have not healed in many respects.

I agree that their was a deep phonyness about Jefferson’s and Madison’s vision of democracy. That vision was shattered by the horrors and excesses of blood in the French Revolution A revolution that ended with France ruled by first another tyrant who mouthed the words of liberty but lusted for conquest and war, and then the return of the very family that the revolution had deposed in the first place. 26 years of blood and war brought them back to right where they started.

It was all to clear why the founders, including Madison, had not created the new government as a democracy.

In many ways we to are right back where we started. Yes we created Hamilton’s vision of a modern combined industrial and agricultural powerhouse, but then we threw it away with the “democracy” and “fairness” of the welfare state. So now we are both the most heavily taxed people in the world and on the verge of “electing” a lying sociopath if not psychopath willing to buy the office of President with the promise of taxing the shrinking labor force even more while at the same time bring a fifth column into our midst because it’s politically expedient to do so. In short were screwed.

I will not say that Hamilton came form property but he was conscious of his social status and saw an opportunity in his vision coming from a foreign country (St Kitts, Wast Indies aka Caribbean) meaning the opportunity was present in the then USA in the forging of an egalitarian society.
No doubt that his ‘European ancestry provided the priviledge in an era of inequity before the law at that time.

I agree that there was no white bloc at the time, because it would not make sense to speak of one in a generally monoracial context. The prospective demographic change of civil rights and the end of Jim Crow was most immediate and palpable in the Deep South, and the Deep South ceased being a solid Democratic voting bloc.

I hold with respect to alliances, that England is a Power sufficiently strong, sufficiently powerful, to steer her own course, and not to tie herself as an unnecessary appendage to the policy of any other Government. I hold that the real policy of England—apart from questions which involve her own particular interests, political or commercial—is to be the champion of justice and right; pursuing that course with moderation and prudence, not becoming the Quixote of the world, but giving the weight of her moral sanction and support wherever she thinks that justice is, and wherever she thinks that wrong has been done…I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow… And if I might be allowed to express in one sentence the principle which I think ought to guide an English Minister, I would adopt the expression of Canning, and say that with every British Minister the interests of England ought to be the shibboleth of his policy.

Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston (20 October 1784 – 18 October 1865) was a British statesman who served twice as Prime Minister in the mid-19th century. Popularly nicknamed “Pam” and “The Mongoose”, he was in government office almost continuously from 1807 until his death in 1865, beginning his parliamentary career as a Tory, switching to the Whigs in 1830, and concluding it as the first Prime Minister of the newly-formed Liberal Party from 1859.

Apart from his own, he got Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, and only those. A white Deep South bloc, but desultory in the grand scheme of the putative white US bloc, given the demographics of the time. He failed miserably. Peter Lee is saying there was a self conscious or at least self interested historical white US voting bloc as such but Goldwater’s results show otherwise.; it did not exist.

The Deep South actually voted for Goldwater.

This was right before the civil rights movement and modern wave of immigration inaugurated the recent period of demographic change. Until then, with Jim Crow and essentially no immigration, demographic change was not a salient political issue.

“Despite the awkward fact of southern elite treason, the importance of elite support for the federal government was reaffirmed as, after a brief interlude of carpetbagging, blacks were disenfranchised, and southern elites were welcomed back into local and federal governments and the heart of the southern economy”.

Not true, Southern elites never regained their prior disproportionate leadership positions in the federal government. Southern elites probably realized the odds against Southern survival were long. Like John S. Mosby who said he fought because “The South was my country” Southerners and Northerners, elite and otherwise fought because that was who they were, it’s called identity.

A related point is the so called voting bloc. Why would any individual vote? If they are thinking rationally (or like lumpens) they know their vote cannot make the slightest difference. Voting, like joining your country’s army and proly getting killed, is done for ends that are internal to the practice. So is voting.

Barry Goldwater was rejected by whites, because he opposed civil rights laws, where was what Mister Lee dubs a white bloc on that occasion? It obviously didn’t exist then. Lee Attwatter said that he was very surprised to find that Southerners were unaware or uninterested in the Voting Rights act. Nothing that fits the post’s definition of a white bloc then either.

John Dewey:-

The new public which is generated remains long inchoate, unorganized, because it cannot use inherited political agencies The latter, if elaborate and well institutionalized, obstruct the organisation of the new public. [...]

To form itself, the public has to break existing political forms. This is hard to do because these forms are themselves the regular means of instituting change. The public which generates political forms is passing away, but the power and lust of possession remains in the hands of the officers and agencies which the dying public instituted. This is why the change of the form of states is so often effected only by revolution (The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry By John Dewey, Melvin L. Rogers)

You should take your medication.

Alas for our evident lack of courage, we’ve accomplished more than enough and likely will remain one of the last bastions of tradition in a world increasingly gone degenerate. You may also want to consider why you’re making more enemies on the right.

You’re right, we’re more collectivistic – or most of us, anyway. There’s some good reasons for it. Regardless, this is hardly a negative trait all things considered: as Evola noted, much of tradition exists as in opposition to unrestrained individuality.

Anyway, your wild digressions are amusing but I came here to read from Mr. Lee, who has far more awareness than you do.

I can appreciate your sentiment, but I don’t see what this rambling has to do with my comment and most whites are more “mice balled” by your criteria: Chinese have been conquered before but they always evicted the invaders eventually, on the other hand white Americans are too afraid to even talk about the immigration/invasion.

Labour did organise and give the US’s working people its desired outcome of a high standard of living and benefits/ pensions. I would say demographic change is the elite (which can only mean representatives of business interests) countering working class organisation by bringing in immigrants, which has the great advantage that anyone who objects can be called a bigot. . It is a bit like the way cohesive Catholic neighborhoods Polish, Irish Italian were broken up by busing ect, with objections being put down to racism. The fragmented remnants are easily defeated, because they are a mob, but once upon a time working people had their own cohesive organisation and communities, and that was a formidable restraint on the business class, one they set about destroying. The final insult is to portray the defeated as a racist power bloc.

I don’t see it as at all obvious that the US’s European-ancestry working class were every cohesive enough for elites to have a alliance with them.”.

It should be remembered that the American revolution was driven to a significant extent by the alienation of US elites, especially in New England, from Great Britain, and the creation of a potent alliance of “mob” and “snob” fatal to British rule.

I think it think it is increasingly believed by academic historians that the 13 colonies rose against what they saw as a papist plot: religious liberty for Catholics under the Quebec act. Fanatical Catholic hater Benedict Arnold (an early hero of the revolution) switched sides because some ‘Patriots’ attended a Catholic service for French allies. George Washington had to forbid his officers and men from regularly burning the pope in effigy.

In the late 19 century James G. Blaine, a Representative and a Senator (from Maine where many French Canadian Catholics had settled) caused anti Catholic education amendments to be passed in most states (secularism of the French states also dates from laws of that time) which is where private schooling in the US came from, long before the racial integration of public schools which was , as it was intended to be, most drastic in ethnic Catholic areas. Yes, private schools in the US long preceded busing, they date from late 19th century restriction of parochial (Catholic) schooling. Senator Ted Kennedy told the Senate during a civil rights debate that he saw ” No Irish Need Apply” signs when growing up. It was other whites he was complaining about. The elite loathing for cohesive Catholic communities (Italian, Irish ect neighborhood) was strong well into the 20th century, when racial integration was used to destroy them . Some alliance!

some folks are complaining about “manners.” Heh heh. JW

appropriate comment. The mice balled readily follow the Big Man into any collectivist project that the little Man sees is the current thing to do by his fellow little men. All of us readily, or almost all of us, sacrifice ourselves for our group, family, children, when the alternative is disgrace. ..

What surprises us in the chinks is their readiness for suicide when they cannot save face. Also, the NYT had a story on college cheating a month or so. The chinks cheat 5x more than Whites. Where I live, the suicides of Asian students is a big deal. We now have railroad crossing guards which are supposed to deter suicides….say what? The would-be suicide is shamed into not killing himself?
Apparently.

Better to cheat than deal with social pressure of not getting that A or so. Also, social pressure about getting caught cheating is apparently not a big deal. This is the amorality of chinkdom (and others) which sees Success as far more important than ethics.

Collectivism is the perfect match for the mice-balled. I had a chink doc with whom I argued a bit, and when stymied, he said, “Well, I just do what I am told.”

Personally, I went to jail over the Vietnam war.

I recommend that the mice-balled on this list try arguing a point with me instead of worrying about what People might Think. Actually, they don’t Think, they Feel. Only people with big balls have the psychological make-up to Think. This is true of women too. This is true courage, and not just social adjustment, or simply, stupidity.

All people have a social nature that weighs heavily on their Thinking process. Because we feel the social pressure, we adjust our ‘thinking’ to fit in. Or, we keep our mouths shut.

Ron Unz is to be congratulated for his tolerance for dissent. .

I don’t know what some folks think/feel here. I am a racist just like the rest of you who marry within your race, etc. only I have big balls and simply tell the truth. I also have an objective argument as to why Whites are the best race. Might is Right up to a point. Right now, (whites) and for the last half century, we whites have ethically and altruistically given the benefit of the doubt to the untermenschen.

That is about over, except for the liberals whose jobs are on the line if they don’t worship the niggers, the jews, the chinks, etc. Actually, the liberals I talk to around where I live don’t care for the chinks and say so. Also, Mexicans are strangely not much championed by the libs….it is the Holy Negro that white liberals worship. Strange, strange, strange. Every measure of blacks is a failure except for athletics and shit music.

Just about everybody is racist, even white liberals and jews who shout the loudest about White Racism! Jews especially get a pass for endogamy…they are the biggest racists around in the West.

That is good for the Jews, and I just want what is Good for Whites. Apparently about half the country is Feeling this way these days…had enough with the Coloreds and the lies of racial equality and elitist bullying of working people…all the while elite liberals send their kids to private schools, and are in deep Denial about Billary, etc.

Trump is the beginning of the counter-revolution. If he loses, the counter0revolution will continue, and we will be lucky to escape civil war. Never mind Europe for now.

Joe Webb

I suspect Ron might pause before dealing with the crass manners of some commenters which are not legally objectionable. He is no school marm.

Exactly, the French revolutionaries were from the same class. Obnoxious nouveau riche were much worse to the “common man” than the nobility ever was

Totally without white balls, the chinks have less than half the weight of White balls, and so they snivel and kow-tow to any Big Man, or communist-capitalist Authority.

I agree with the oriental despotism concept, but I wouldn’t say they are cowardly: they fought to the death against the incredibly brutal Japanese army during WW2 (winning the admiration of many white Americans btw), whereas few Europeans took up arms against Nazi or Soviet occupations during and after the war.

where did you pick up on his hairstyle?

WOZ, are you defending Ron? you don’t think he can manage his ‘zine on his own?

I went for a chinese meal with an English/Iranian, back in the eighties, and (unintendingly) he asked the waiter to change his plate because it had a chink in it.

But I agree, coarseness is uncalled for. With the exception of Priss/DFS because he demonstrates true comic genius. imo

Really enjoyed this article. Gave me the feeling of traveling back in time to find the pivotal reason for the American Revolution, and forward through history to see how this pivotal reason plays out in crucial historical times. When the snobs are united, the strength of the central government grows to protect their interests. When that strong central government eventually favors the interests of one portion of the snobs over that of another, the snobs who feel they are not getting theirs reach out to and even temporarily unite with a useful portion of the mob to claw back more power to themselves. And at times the snob vs snob differences are so great that revolution, secession, or civil war may result. Nothing explains political theory and the major movements in political history better than these snob vs mob dynamics. You definitely won’t find this in any history book. Very well done!!!

The key here is — assuming you want to reanimate….create — a republican democracy is to detach mobs from snobs. Which means creating sufficient class consciousness such that the term “mob” is no longer an adequate description. Allow elites to lead a “popular uprising” & the best outcome will be a slight reshuffling of the 0.01% (and their various tools and hang-er-on-ers).

Do you do this on other blogs/webzines or is your deliberate use of language and ideas calculated to allow you to pass as a skinhead intended to bring UR into disrepute?

you are certainly onto something there with Kabballa. One jewish guy wrote a book about how Freud is the fruit of Kabbalah. I was on the scent and thought I might write about it, but he beat me there. Of course he thought it was wonderful. Christian Kabballah goes back to the Puritans.

However, Christians seem to be pretty much clear of magical nonsense once you accept the God idea, which allows for one magical moment and the rest then is reason and scientific, per the Church.

Still the Church still expects the jews to convert, and that would be some magic.

The Israeli Israel Shahak wrote probably the best little book on Jewish magism…Jewish History; Jewish Religion. Shahak was a chemist by profession as I recall.

Orthodox jews are still knee-deep in magic. And Strange sexual rites/practices Just a lot of weird fucks.

I dunno if muzzies go in for magic too.

joe webb, not a nazi cuz among other things, AH was a narrow german nationalist and had this thing about slavs. I am a White Nationalist Without Hitler, which makes me something of an oddball since so many WN types have a little magical connection with He who must be obeyed.

However, if I was forced to choose between them and a lot of the fools on this list I would head up the next SS Command. I am smart enough, and Superior enough by far to handle the resenters and so on. Slam! go the cell doors for quite along time, long enough to get the counter-revolution on track.

By the way, one of my WN friends wonders if Trump has been a false flag for the jews. I don’t think so, just white warts on Trump which may be treated with reality check-ins. Besides, Trump if elected might have a couple surprises in store for The Jews. Not happy surprises. His family jews are great alibis and plausible denial stuff.

Joe Webb

Devine right as usual. It’s interesting that the kings of the latter days would disguise their lame testosterone toxicity by using a witch for their masthead.

It’s a two-step process. First, the candidate sells his vote if elected to elites (snobs) for campaign and other “contributions”. Then the thus raised funds are used for political advertising promising voters (mob) political support that his already been sold to competing interests in step 1. The step 2 mob people are just too dumb to catch on. After all, it’s two years between scams.

That’s all you got – a lousy nitpicking comment?

Is this all the comment you have on the 2016 Electoral Circus versus the Restoration of our Republic, as seen through the historical prism of a comparison of the differences between the Jeffersonians and the Hamiltonians ?

Read my lips! Tom Paine was a great Founder, by far the most revolutionary of the bunch, but Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Jeffersonian also had a gift of, a brilliant ability to question far into the future, and to express his ideas. Jefferson was Paine’s closest friend.

Check among the hundreds of Texts and other Histories. try Zinn, Commager, etc.

One of many links. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwixgu284bfOAhXIKyYKHU6qDLEQFgg4MAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.surfnetkids.com%2Findependenceday%2F261%2Fwho-wrote-the-declaration-of-independence%2F&usg=AFQjCNGYrSRm-w9Njn_OHQ7aVcCEA4J3kA&sig2=6ZAySuY1ZTgZyJ-abdDdpQ

It’s not about You, or self-serving internet Trolls. Our nation is in great trouble, as is the rest of the planet. What is your -contribution- to the discussion and our country’s future?

His broader point is that based on certain features in American politics established by architects like Hamilton, successful rule or revolt requires an alliance between “mob and snob”. The mob is restrained by this system from effecting its political desires and will without the snob i.e. local elites who tend to be co-opted by the system. The white conservative bloc may have been opposed to demographic change, but had no real way in the system to transform their desires into political reality without the participation of elites, who were willing to use their votes to win elections, but either had no intent of doing their bidding or become co-opted by the system.

assassination in 2016? doubt it. the moneyed interests are not that stupid. the most likely thing is they will use all their accumulated powers to stop whatever he tries to do while in office. make him into a lame duck president.

Joe Webb is a white nigger whose delusion and stupidity is beyond the pale.

Belief in magic and the magical tradition have always persisted in the West, despite attempts by Christianity and secular monotheisms such as Communism to wipe it out. See for example the Hermetic tradition and folk magic traditions such as the cunning folk of Britain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetic_tradition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunning_folk_in_Britain

As Westerners became secularized and urbanized, the folk magic tradition which persisted in rural communities into the early 20th century, and still persists to some degree today, significantly declined, but magic persisted in new movements such as the New Thought movement and certain American Protestant sects:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Thought

Today, magic still persists in the positive thinking and self-help field, and the Hermetic tradition is still alive as well.

The most interesting development of the US election, I think, is the formal abandonment of the white conservative voting bloc as the vital adjunct to elite rule. Demographic change has rendered the male white conservative bloc vulnerable, …

The “vital” white conservative bloc didn’t act as such, if they were unable or unwilling to prevent demographic changes that made them disposible. If they were what you say they were, whites would hot have lost their country. In other words, a position of racial hegemony cannot be lost unless the dominant bloc never really thought of themselves as a white bloc or acted as if they were. Pointing out that whites are white is not an argument, you have to show they were self consciously white and acted as such.

What they did to further white interests was to lose their control of the system, a denouement that sounds more like the actions of a hapless bunch of well meaning people who wanted everyone to get along, though others were calling them racists. But all that lack of assertion of their interests counts for nothing of you point out they were ‘white”, and thus tainted with interests as a group, even if they didn’t defend them.

Could he survive winning ?

The identity of the elites is completely irrelevant. They’ll sell the rest of us whites down the river, just as the overwhelmingly male Congress sold men down the river with anti-male family law, the assumption of male guilt in rape cases, and a body of “sexual harassment” law that makes Soviet-era censorship look lenient.

“…Chinks and jews still believe in magic”

The levantine mystics have completely conquered whites with their kabbalistic wizardry. Even Trump is all jewed up.

Who’s Henry Temple?

Darruti:

Correction: Evidence actually points to Thomas Paine as the author of the Declaration, not Thomas Jefferson.
See jamesperloff.com for detail…

Hey Homer

There’s a mistake in your post.

You left out the part about the secret Zionist Jews.

Sherm

why, hello there, nazi wannabe.

The difference between despotic and altruistic government is the rather chance nature of the snob in power as much as the form of government. A reasonably enabled proletariat is a thumb on the scale in favor of the mob, i.e. the defacto mob at Runnymede. The media-directed mob in the U.S. appears to be completely ineffective in looking after its own interests.

IIRC, Michelle Malkin showed that a few of those Japanese-American citizens interred had actually spied on US interests on behalf of their Imperial Japan cousins. Had just the traitors been rounded up, the Japs would have known the codes were compromised.

The Clinton-era Reparations to descendants of internees,went to a few descendants of traitors. Not that the Damned to Hell Clintons would ever care…

another resenter. JW

more…reminds me of Jewish attacks on White Civilization, etc. constant criticism. When we whites were fighting for relative democracy in 1789 (with all its warts) the jews were totally subservient to their rabbis who ran the ghettoes. Jews had to be liberated by Napoleon. Then, after liberation, they resumed their attacks on Whites, Christians, and so on. Communism was Jewish. Communism led to reaction, called Fascism. And yes it was anti-semitic, for good reason.

superior people? be more nazi why don’t you.

That quote is in reference to England’s national interest. It is referring to the alliances of a cohesive, homogeneous country, not the machinations of an elite fundamentally opposed to their subjects and their subjects’ way of life. For example, Henry Temple never ethnically cleansed lower-class and middle-class Englishmen from London, as has in fact happened today. Henry Temple would never dream of doing such a thing, not in a million years.

There are immense differences in economic and political arrangements between universal democracy, aristocratic republicanism, National Socialism, Communism, monarchy, and so on. Under different systems, different people win and lose in various facets of life, in different ways. Sometimes, as with Communism, they lose a whole lot more than they win. In other words, some systems are better than others.

There will always be political friction between “mobs and snobs” simply because their interests are different, but tribal loyalties tend to transcend this division. Ruling elites culturally and genetically unrelated to their wards tend to be much more despotic. There’s much more to politics than class struggle.

Good article. Hamilton, the “bastard son of a Scots peddler”, was an aristocrat wannabe–not dissimilar from the current elite crowd who seem to have suddenly discovered him. The version of Hamilton’s story currently featured on Broadway is both ironic and telling, with the creators in the words of the author serving as a “snob accessory”. And in the eyes of a class who have who would regard the element that created Hip-Hop Hamilton as one would regard a favorite pet, the word “accessory” is well put.

Mr. Lee appears to be an avatar of the Red Guards of recent Chinese totalitarian vintage.

Such mob and snob lexiconal expletives leads quickly to the killing fields.

So, the genuine snob here is Mr. Lee, like most Asians who lack a sense of a small d democratic sensibility. This White sensibility allows for tolerance of the way at least White people are, and adjusts to human frailty while holding out for more nobility.

Feudalism was the White expression of nobility claiming rights from one-another as well as from any Big Man who wanted all the power. This is where our rights have come from, while the chinks have no history of such demands for shared power. Rights for Some is bar better than rights for no one. Magna Carta, etc. was the beginning of what we call small d democracy, something that never happened in Asia, or anywhere else on the planet. Before that it was Greco-Roman relative democracy. Again, O! they had slaves! Yeah, so did everyone else, but whites expressed Individualism and Freedom for at least the most noble. Right, I am a snob when it comes to chinks gloating over our White warts, when the whole body of a chink is a wart, as bad as the President for Life ….of Africa. Chinkdom…where Nobody is Free.

Chinks grovel in the dust before Authority. Whites fight for themselves and for their peers.

The chink cannot understand this and thus you get crap like mr. lee.

Totally without white balls, the chinks have less than half the weight of White balls, and so they snivel and kow-tow to any Big Man, or communist-capitalist Authority.

Those whites who think this is a good article betray their own resentments of superior people.

Joe Webb

I hate Hamilton. I am glad Burr killed him. And I thank the duelist who killed his son the year before.

So far, honor, decency and all that other emotional human junk are no match for the focus of power and money – but us mob types keep trying. The good ole Hamilton (Anglozionist) USA should win the next round of hegemony too unless the mob gets a clear picture of our serfdom and the parasites who own us. Unlikely. Just shout “freedom, liberty, free trade, democracy, terrorist,…” and we fall for it every time.

The article was well done and gave me a new perspective. Clever boy is Hamilton.

Brilliant post.

Mob and snob politics can be used to explain the all human history, not just USA.

Mob are just tool for snob when central power is not on their side or struggle between snobs. Democracy, communism, Nazism, socialism, all other progressive ideologies are just tools for snob to harness mob energy to achieve their goals through revolution. At end, elites are still snobs. The rest 99% are still mobs. Mobs never learn and are suckers for snobs scam again and again. Most cannon folders are from mobs who are mentally slaved by snobs to do dirty work. People’s power is not for people but for snob. Once snob get what they want, mob is quickly forgotten or actively oppressed again.

Even in Feudal society with clearly status classification, mob is also exploited again and again for dynasty change.

” We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow… “

So mob can be friend or enemy depending on the interest.

“However, after independence—and by the time the constitution was written–US elites lost their love for the masses; Hamilton and his Federalists, in particular, lived in terror of the mob, thanks to the outbreak of Shays’s rebellion, the example of the French revolution ”

The Constitution was written in September 1787 and ratified in June 1788. The French Revolution was a long and complicated process, but its traditional starting point was the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789. So the Constitution was written nearly two years before the French Revolution began.

I see immediately how the Sedition Act was [wildly] unconstitutional. I don’t see how the Naturalization Act, Alien Friends Act or Alien Enemies Act were unconstitutional.

None of those restricted the constitutional rights of US citizens, they merely asserted the sovereign prerogatives of citizens with regards to whether or not to admit immigrants from other lands and to determine their status once living in the US. All countries are entitled to regulate conditions of entry and requirements [including time] for aliens to achieve citizenship. Similarly, deportation or detention of enemy nationals in wartime is legitimate.

The core problem with the detention of Japanese Americans is that most of the were US citizens. If they’d all been Japanese citizens only, what the Roosevelt Administration had done would be legitimate.

As a Prof (and author) of History, I found this essay by Peter Lee to be fascinating.

In some of my recent missives and articles, I have concentrated on the revolutionary thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, who was the theoretical leader of the American Revolution.

What must be understood:

Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence, which is America’s most important document. I quote in part.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal… governments are instituted among men, deriving their 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 abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles…”

Jefferson, in the context of his time (yes, he was a slaveholder, but Hamilton and other Northern business interests, also profited off slavery), represented a step forward in the evolution of political Libertarian ideals. He was John Locke on steroids. Jefferson advanced Lock’s philosophy, with a ringing affirmation that we “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

American Founder, Thomas Jefferson, wrote in a letter to James Madison:

“I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’:”

“Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it’s course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation.”

In short, while Hamilton represented a desire of American elites to re attach themselves to the global British Empire, and the Jeffersonians, favored an American Republic, Fully Sovereign, going it alone, and with a limited, and not all powerful State Apparatus. Jeffersonians tended to idealize the American people (if not all of them), and the Hamiltonians, disrespected the American people, (all of them except for the wealthy elite).

The Jeffersonians displayed many contradictions, as they helped repress Haiti’s Liberated Nation of former slaves, and referred to native Americans as “Indian Savages” whereas the Hamiltonians displayed fewer contradictions as to their political behavior, they were, also, no friends to the Native Americans, or to the African slaves.

An excellent History Monograph on Thomas Jefferson is:

The Radical Politics of Thomas Jefferson
Richard K. Matthews

Richard Matthews argues that despite scores of books and hundreds of articles, Thomas Jefferson remains the most seriously misrepresented and misunderstood Founding Father. Matthews’s Jefferson emerges as America’s first and foremost advocate of permanent revolution, a democratic communitarian, and an anit-market theorist. this interpretation has been suggested in the past, but seldom has it been argued so persuasively or so intensely.

It is Matthews’s intent to “extricate Jefferson from the myths that surround, envelop, and ultimately distort him.”

For Love of Country which necessitates Love of All our People!

I am not insisting on the primacy of one group of America’s Founders over another, only that we respect them all and attempt to understand their role in forming our – once Great, and to be Great Again, Free, with Restored Liberties, Great again, with our Republic Restored, full of Democracy and Love, Happiness, and Healthy prosperity, beloved America.

What was rendered asunder on November 22, 1963, must be Rebuilt! Only We The people can do this. No one else will help.

The Electoral Circus – The Post Republic Quisling Feds, Congress, Governors, Mayors, et. al., suborned politicians, cruel imperialist murderers, agents of foreign powers, and of the military financial complex, must be avoided as – poison. The Bushes, Clintons, Hollywood Obomber, and Casino Trump, the Generals, CIA, MOSSAD, are not our leaders, only our jailers.

For the VISION!

For the Democratic Republic!

Durruti – alias, Peter J. Antonsen

“Demographic change has rendered the male white conservative bloc vulnerable.” LOL ….

Why this bloc didn’t feel vulnerable for the last 300 years? After all, the 1% elites have always been mostly White Christians.

America may have changed demographically – but 95% of the Senate and Congress members are still Judeo-Christian Whites.

American White nature was rightfully explained by the Russian-born famous American Jewish science-fiction author professor Isaac Assimov (Boston University – died 1992), who said how a venomous strain of stupid permeates American social life, based on the premise that my stupid is as good as your smart.

https://rehmat1.com/2016/08/10/erdogan-meets-putin/

democracy, the perfect system in which the mob puts on their own slave collars. what’s not to love about it for snobs?

with how good surveillance tech has gotten over the last 15 years since internet + social media + phone, the mob has zero chance, zero.

Smart watchers have always thought of usa as being controlled by a few moneyed elites, they were surprised when donald was winning. I wonder if that will last. can donald win the oval office?

White power, as I put it, was left lying in the streets…and Donald Trump picked it up.

I had been saying for the last sixteen years that the working class (electorally speaking) was up for grabs. I was referring to the WHOLE working class. Now I know that I was correct regarding the white portion only.

Because Hamilton was a snob and people of color are now regarded as a valuable snob accessory.

BLM take note.

Specifically, Hamilton devoted a great deal of intellect and energy to creating a bond between rich guy and the central government that would address the biggest threat to the federal system: secession.

As a card carrying member of the mob secession is my favorite word. How many divisions to occupy say the Pacific North West. Or Texas. Or Pennsylvania? How many non-billionaires want to be ruled by Imperial Washington’s Police State?

Thanks for a good read.

Was abolition seriously even under consideration at the time of the Revolution? Author assumes it, I’ve never heard of it. It’s just that the slaves were primarily useful on plantations, and the South has the climate for plantations.

Main cause of Southern secession was enormous import tariffs imposed by central government. Since the South imported more, they were getting hit by far the hardest. Not slavery, which even Lincoln didn’t care much one way or the other about.

Ultimately, Hamilton was a guy who rose from poverty by sucking up to the elites, and he despised the rabble from which he came, probably even more the small landholders who had once been his social superiors but whom he could now arrange to subjugate. (I don’t have proof of this but it sounds like that kind of human nature.) His sustenance came from big government and it was his mission to impose it on everyone else. He didn’t sign the Declaration of Independence, but he definitely signed the Constitution to take back some of the freedom that had been won.

Although Napoleon himself didn’t hold Talleyrand in great regard:
« Vous êtes de la merde dans un bas de soie ! »
“(a piece of) shit in a silk stocking”

http://www.talleyrand.org/vieprivee/talleyrand_injures.htm

“which is kind of rare for a musical”

Musicals used to have reserved spots on the charts, way back when people actually used to know songwriters’ names. I don’t know when that changed, though obviously rock and roll had something to do with it. But for a long while Broadway still churned out hits with Sondheim, Hamlisch, Weber, and so forth. But I can’t name one damn song from the last 20+ years, though I could probably recognize one from Rent if I heard it. I’ve heard the name “Defying Gravity,” but honestly have no idea how it goes.

I have no idea what they’re up to nowadays, what audience they write for, or how they’d stay in business if it weren’t for revivals, reviews, and movie adaptations. I accidentally tuned into the Tonys recently for a split second and saw some girl singing about a fascinating wallet chain some lesbian wore over to her house that inspired her towards a life of lesbianism. What the hell? Broadway was always gay, since when were they nothing but gay (or “street”)?

Personal ambition and rags to riches is relevant to hip-hop, plus a million other things. “I wish there was a war” is a little more on the mark, as is the fact that he’d always be seen as a jumped up bastard brat, and that his mind is always on money. But I don’t see much else tying Hamilton to hip-hop culture.

No doubt he’d have been mocked for “acting white.” He was a math whiz, went to private school, was partly self-taught, worked hard as a clerk, sucked up to the powerful, and so on. And it’s not as if he joined a street gang; he was in a real army, even if it wasn’t the legitimate army before it won the war. How “hip-hop” is it to go into the army?

‘I wish there was a war.’ It doesn’t get more hip-hop than that.”

Well, that certainly ties a lot of loose ends together.

Of those, I’ve seen Rent, Wicked, and Sunset Boulevard on Broadway. Seasons of Love isn’t Rent’s best song, IMO. I always liked One Song / Glory, and Light My Candle are better. It’s got several memorable songs, which is kind of rare for a musical.

I couldn’t name any Sunset Boulevard songs without looking them up, or even remember a melody. I do remember it was a really classy, expensive-looking production, and it had some clever lines in it.

Wicked was an impressive bit of theater too, but there’s really only that one song I remember. Most musicals are lucky to have more than 2 or 3 really good songs. One exception, in addition to Rent, was The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Most of the soundtrack is pretty good.

I’ll try to give Jersey Boys another try next time it’s on.

BTW, Fox put on a live performance of Grease on Sunday night, and it was really spectacular. You can watch the recording of it via the link in the tweet below.

Want to relive #GreaseLive?! Watch it on FOX NOW: https://t.co/nx5gclchCd

While reading Ron Chernow’s exhaustive 2004 Hamilton biography, Mr. Miranda was struck by the parallels between Hamilton — an illegitimate immigrant from the West Indies who rose to power largely by the sheer force of his rhetoric — and such hustlers-turned-moguls as Jay Z.

“By the second chapter, I was like, ‘I know this guy,’ ” Mr. Miranda said. “Just the hustle and ambition it took to get him off the island — this is a guy who wrote his way out of his circumstances from the get-go. That is part and parcel with the hip-hop narrative: writing your way out of your circumstances, writing the future you want to see for yourself. This is a guy who wrote at 14, ‘I wish there was a war.’ It doesn’t get more hip-hop than that.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/theater/lin-manuel-miranda-and-others-from-hamilton-talk-history.html

If an illegal returns who was given cash to GTFO, then he gets booted. He already got paid once. You are correct. The details need to be worked out. One way is that after you have gotten rid of your undesirable illegals, asylum seekers and refugees via a free plane home and cash incentives, you tighten things up so they cannot make a repeat appearance on you soil.

Original “got milk?” commercial – Who shot Alexander Hamilton?

I’m much less confident than you. Brazilian landowning and business interests were opposed to abolition (which occurred only because of a princess’s imperial decree, and was motivated mainly by moral concerns) and their opposition led to the deposition of the Brazilian emperor the next year and his replacement by an oligarchic republic, although the new Brazilian government didn’t try to put the genie back in the bottle. Without the forced destruction of U.S. slavery it doesn’t happen, at least not in 1888.

Slavery was never economical from the perspective of the general public, it only prospered for a powerful and well-megaphoned aristocracy, but that was formidable enough. You’re right that the admission of new territory would have required 2/3 Senate ratification, but the filibustering movements were operating in a social context which had just seen the successful annexation of Texas in 1845, the Mexican Cession of 1848, and the Gadsden Purchase of 1853, all expected to be entirely or mostly slave territory, and the fact that a Republican president like Grant would later seek the annexation of the modern Dominican Republic a few years later proves that northern interests which aligned with the Slavocracy in favoring the earlier acquisitions of territory were still present in the 1870s. The Senate that rejected Santo Domingo was more than 80% Republican with most of the former Confederate states still under Reconstruction governments, and responding to the altered political conditions that followed the Civil War and abolition of slavery. It still got half.

One wonders whether Vidal went far enough ’round the bend to come back again to something approaching the truth.

Talleyrand being characteristically modest.

The honor goes to Talleyrand himself.

A good biography of Aaron Burr would be nice. I have never understood him. Or Benedict Arnold either. The reigning stories don’t ring true to me.

An exercise in historical masochism:

US Presidents, 1789-1820: Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe

US Presidents, 1989-2020: GHW Bush, Bill Clinton, GW Bush, Barack Obama

“How wrong you are. If you know anything about how cultural trends work, there will be a deluge of nothing but rap musicals.”

Rap music is over 30 years old. “In the Heights,” Miranda’s first rap musical, is about a decade old. It won a lot of Tony Awards but it isn’t especially popular. The audience for rap and the audience for musical theatre don’t overlap all that much, and probably never will. There will be musicals with rap numbers in them, just as so many musicals like to have a variety of musical styles in them, but rap musicals will be rare. Popular rap musicals will be even rarer.

“I consider Napoleon, Fox, and Hamilton, the three greatest men of our epoch, and if I were forced to decide between the three, I would give without hesitation the first place to Hamilton. “

Talleyrand on Alexander Hamilton

I don’t want to get into the minutiae of the duel. Let’s say Hamilton wanted to kill Burr, for argument’s sake. Still, it was Burr who challenged Hamilton, wasn’t it? With an intent to kill him. I’m not a gentleman, we stand outside the traditions of the code duello, and Hamilton was provided an opportunity to defend himself. Burr didn’t ambush him on the way home from work and shoot him in the back, or anything. But he did shoot him with the intent to kill him for the fact that he was a political rival (and that he besmirched his honor, and blah, blah, blah).

You egregiously ignorant.

Note the use of the standard PC line of attack in regards to Jefferson. He owned slaves. Hence, we can safely discount anything that he says.

There’s a lot more in there than that. Those are impressive lyrics. There’s the conflict between an agrarian future and an industrial one. Southern slave-holders were the original free-trade, cheap-labor lobby. When you don’t have to pay your workers, you don’t have to worry about foreign markets undercutting your costs. Cheap labor and free markets go together.

Sure. People like us can trace a direct line from plantation owners in the 18th century to billionaires advocating open borders in the 21st. But I rather doubt that that’s what Miranda has in mind. He’s simply using Jefferson’s status as a slave owner as a way to shut down debate.

Actually, the most famous Hollywood actresses were European: Greta Garbo, Sophia Lauren, Audrey Hepburn, etc, all European.

On the other hand, America has Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck, Lauren Bacall, Ava Gardner, Kim Novak, Eva Marie Saint,Grace Kelly, etc, etc, etc,

Also, if you really cared that much about keeping Hamilton away from power why go through it in such a roundabout way? Especially considering he wielded enormpu power anyway as the treasury secretary. Why not simply murder him, as, incidentally, Burr more or less did?

While there is no evidence that Hamilton had any black ancestry, there is some that he had Jewish blood. His mother was rumored to be of Jewish ancestry,

Rachel Faucette. No one has found any solid evidence of Jewish ancestry.

as was the man to who his mother was still married at the time of Hamilton’s birth.

Johann Michael Lavien. It’s possible that he was Jewish.

It is notable that Hamilton fudged the date of his birth – probably to reconstruct a better time line in which Hamilton Sr. could have been his father.

After arriving in mainland North America, Hamilton gave 1757 as his birth year. However, documents from his youth in the Caribbean list it as 1755. Most historians favor the 1755 date. The usual explanation is that Hamilton advanced the date in order to not stand out among his classmates at King’s College (now Columbia). Hamilton would have been about 19 (assuming that the 1755 date is correct) when he formally matriculated at King’s. Most university students in the 18th century matriculated at age 15-16.

Politics aren’t irrelevant to putting someone’s face on currency.

By the Maoist standards of our age, sure. But that’s why DW Griffith has become an unperson.

And as irresistibly cute as Myrna was she didn’t hold a candle to Irene as an actress.

Dunno. They seem quite comparable to me. And Myrna Loy has the immortal Thin Man series backing her up.

Many WASPs are apathetic about race if not outright race traitors. This is true. Jews, OTOH, rarely if ever act in ways traitorous to the tribe, although the high rate of miscegenation makes one wonder.

When the credit bubble finally bursts (it surely has not yet), the effect will be for there to be a massive “shortage” of money. It is impossible to run an economy like that of the USA on physical cash, but paradoxically the only “money” that won’t be subject to evaporation will be banknotes.

You are 100% correct. “Not subject to evaporation” is accurate. In a deflationary crash people will lose bank deposits, bonds will go belly up, credit cards might not be accepted, but green Federal Reserve Notes will still be accepted, will maintain value and even go up in value. Paper money will be last man standing. Dittos for our humble coinage.

In an hyperinflation Federal reserve Notes lose their value every day.

I fear Jack D simply thinks Hamilton was intelligent, and that is all the evidence he needs to be sure that he was Jewish.

See my comment 119 as well.

So the current Eurasian pax has included both world wars?

One could look at the 1914-1945 period as a brief break in the British-American Empire necessary to accommodate shifting of the capital and the empire’s alliances and to address upstart competing ideologies (communism, fascism). Not wholly unlike Constantine’s shifts in Rome’s capital and the state religion.

“I wouldn’t worry about this starting a trend of rap musicals.”

How wrong you are. If you know anything about how cultural trends work, there will be a deluge of nothing but rap musicals.

Good points.

the Founders were also very familiar with the recent political experiences of Poland. Poland had for 200 years run an elective monarchy whose king, though he sat for life, had similar powers to those granted the presidency [very roughly] and whose position was not hereditary. The enormous noble caste who exercised the franchise had taken over time to selecting foreign candidates [Swedes, Poles, Frenchmen] who were too far down the line in their native realms and were looking for a throne. These generally either acted in the interests of their ancestral realms or provoked endless conflict among neighbouring powers over the next election.

It was one of the major contributors to Poland’s collapse into weakness, then servitude, then partition, a process that was going on parallel to the emergence of the United States and was widely considered among people interested in constitutional questions.

I believe you are omitting from your alternative history the fact that Brazil peacefully ended slavery in 1888, the last state in the Western Hemisphere to do so and a mere 23 years after the end of our Civil War which took the lives of upward of 750,000 Americans. The fact of the matter is that slavery was becoming uneconomical and would have ended on economic grounds without the need of the bloodshed of our Civil War.

I believe any attempt to make Nicaragua a state would have first required a treaty to make it a territory of the U.S. and would have required a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate. After all, the Louisiana Purchase was submitted to the Senate as a treaty and was approved by the Senate by more than a 2/3 vote. A similar proposal was made by President Grant to make the Dominican Republic a territory with a path to statehood in 1870, but the Senate defeated the proposed treaty by a 28-28 vote, and the Dominican Republic never became a state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Santo_Domingo#Treaty_submitted_and_failure

“Politics are irrelevant when one ponders the immortal pairing that was William Powell and Myrna Loy as Nick and Nora Charles.”

I didn’t care for her politics, but I thought Jane Fonda was superb in “Klute.” I voted for him twice, but I also thought Reagan was superb in “Bedtime for Bonzo.” My next door neighbor on Capitol Hill, an elderly widow from Virginia, used to scathingly refer to Reagan as “that B grade actor,” which I thought was a little unfair. We never discussed politics much, but I believe she was a somewhat liberal Democrat.

This can’t be emphasized enough. It’s quite literally unimaginable how much better off we’d be if the abolitionists had been successful 100 years earlier.

Or how worse off we’d be if the abolitionists had faltered in the 1860s. Read up on the Knights of the Golden Circle and the filibustering expeditions of the 1850s to see what a wrecked ship the US would be today had the slave power gotten its way and absorbed half of Latin America into our borders in order to keep up the supply of slave states. With free state California blocking their access to the Pacific, the slave-owning aristocracy was drifting towards an “Invade the World, Invite the World” ideology, and there were all sorts of schemes to annex well-populated Hispanic territories that would undoubtedly have gained force were it not for the Civil War. One filibuster, William Walker, actually succeeded in conquering Nicaragua for a time with the ultimate goal of having it admitted to the USA as a slave state.

I think you’re guilty of imposing 21st-century postmodern categories upon 18th century Whigs, and it simply can’t be done. The Founders were neither “liberal” nor “conservative” in today’s understanding. They were Lockean “liberals” who defended the rights of life, liberty, and property against royalist and monarchist “conservatives” who believed in mercantilism and subjection to hereditary monarchy.

They all thought homosexuality was a perversion (Jefferson proposed castration for the crime of buggery) so issues you cite like gay marriage would have been incomprehensible to them. As far as religion goes, they were all socially conservative and took religion very seriously, but believed that organized religions had been corrupted by politics — they were familiar with the decades of infighting between Anglicans, Catholics, and Puritans in 17th-century England. Consequently, they refused to create a national, “established” established religion like the Church of England.

It’s also worth noting that the Founders took federalism very seriously. While the Federal government was banned from establishing a religion or involving itself in marriage, state governments were NOT. The Founders expected that individual states would make such decisions for themselves under their state constitutions. They would have been aghast at the idea that the Supreme Court would declare a “constitutional right” to gay marriage and force states to perform it.

Attempting to impose today’s political categories and agendas on the Founders reflects a profound misunderstanding of the Founders, and of the constitution they wrote in 1787, prior to the democratizing, egalitarian amendments of the post-Civil War and Progressive Eras, and the 20th-century era of liberal judicial activism.

Yep, looks like I fell prey one of the classic blunders– thinking that Hamilton was the reason for the “natural born citizen” clause is prominently featured on a “Myths about Hamilton” web site.

(The classic blunder being, listening to your family member the legal historian when legal history is on the line, since that’s where I heard this, in a recent conversation about Ted Cruz’s eligibility.)

The concept is pretty old, going back at least to the ballad operas of the mid-18th century. John Gay’s “The Beggar’s Opera” (1728) is the best known example today. On the down side, it seems to correlate strongly with creative exhaustion; there wasn’t a whole lot happening in terms of hot new plays in 1720s English theatre.

“It’s hard to make judgments based on portraits – portrait artists (especially in the pre-photographic age) tried to make the sitter look the way he would LIKE himself to look, not the way he really looked.”

Presumably we have more than a few portraits of Hamilton, not to mention contemporary accounts of him, including his appearance. Do any of them suggest anything other than a man of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant appearance?

Oh and sure he attended a “Jewish” school – a school, that is, with a Jewish teacher. That isn’t quite the same thing as a Jewish school. Do Jews get counted as Christian when they attend schools with Christian teachers? Do I count as black because some of my teachers were black?

“I wrote an article for Chronicles last year about Jefferson’s huge contribution in the 1780s of replacing the traditional English metes-and-bounds system of marking property lines with a futuristic longitude and latitude system for federal land sales in the west. ”

Is this article online? I’d love to read it. Also, Jefferson came up with a metric (decimal at least) system of weights and measures for the US in 1790 but Congress said no thanks.