Tag Archives: Alexander Hamilton

Historical Ignorance and Patriot Mythology concerning the “Fraud” of the American Independence from Great Britain

I had the opportunity to speak with Lowell A. (“Larry”) Becraft again tonight about the mythology of law circulating around the Patriot Movement.  

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/deadissues.htm

http://libertyworksradionetwork.com/jml/index.php

So much nonsense, so little time, but I did think of a little outline concerning one of the biggest issues:  Are the United States really free of Great Britain?  (I can’t quite believe we’re discussing this during the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, whose father was an anti-British Mau Mau).

I hope that we can focus just one the English-influence and Crown Control question for this first topic, because I think that’s the “oldest” and in some ways most basic confusion, because some elements of the conflict clearly bothered and divided even the Founding Fathers, who led a revolution against the “Mother Country” of England:
(1)   During the Revolution: Loyalist Tories vs. Revolutionary Patriots.
(2)   After the Revolution: Anglophile Federalists vs. Francophile Anti-Federalists in and after the Constitutional Convention of 1787; essence of the conflict focusing on the question of government financing and the establishment of a National Bank; and the question of repayment of English creditors and protection of English property interests in the newly freed colonies.
(3)    The party lines were split between Hamilton & Washington v.  Henry, Jefferson, & Madison (with John Adams kind of in the middle).
(4)   Anglophile Federalist Hamiltonians favored centralization and the Bank of the United States IN LARGE PART FOR THE BENEFIT OF ENGLISH CREDITORS OF THE COLONIES—the origin of the “no impairment of the obligations of debt” clause in Article I.
(5)      Francophile Democratic Republicans favored State Sovereignty and a decentralized economy.
(6)   “Second American Revolution” Ended with U.S. Victory at the Battle of New Orleans 200 years ago—no reintegration with the British Empire—why would this war (more popularly known as the War of 1812 have happened AT ALL if the First Revolution had resulted in some sort of secret compromise with Parliament or the Crown?
(7)   Bankers’ attempt on Andrew Jackson’s life: 1835 correlated with the Jackson’s confiscation of the Bank of the United States, effected by Attorney General turned Secretary of the Treasury Roger Brooke Taney (who was rewarded by appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court upon the death of John Marshall after his unparalleled thirty five years).
(8)   1844: James K. Polk sails into office on the motto “54’40 or Fight” regarding the proposed annexation of “all” of Oregon from Great Britain—compromise ended up with extension of 59th parallel—giving North America the beautiful gift of what is now called “British Columbia” and was, until the invasion from Hong Kong, the most English spot on earth outside of England.
(9)   1848: Communist Manifesto casts a pall over the whole world—crystalizing another whole aspect of the “English” Myth: the domination of English, in particular English Jewish Bankers. Communism was, in all the world, especially threatening to the European Crowned Heads and the Southern American Planters (*seen by Marx as relics of Christian Feudalism).
(10)   Rapidly, the English crown works out a compromise with the Bankers (Karl Marx was a member of the Rothschild Family on his mother’s side) and England rapidly grants full civil rights to Jews and begins to expand the Voting Franchise to workers, although this did not happen until 1867, after the American Civil War was over. England had its first Jewish MP within ten years (Lionel Rothschild 1859, partly parodied by Alec Guiness in the movie “Kind Hearts and Coronets”) and London has its first Jewish Mayor in 1855 (David Salamons, also the first Jewish Sheriff of any English shire–namely Kent SE of London).
(10)   So in 1861, America plunged into a civil war that radically changed the landscape.  England supported the South, by more than just words, but Uncle Abe threatened war on England, and for whatever reasons (such as the sympathy of the as yet unenfranchised workers, England was scared.  Queen Victoria was totally in private sympathy with the South but her beloved husband Albert of Saxe-Coburg Gotha was on the side of the North (and the workers).  Does this Sound like a situation where England controlled the U.S. in 1860?  At all?
(11)  After the War England actually PAID A LARGE INDEMNITY TO THE US for its support of the South and for outfitting Southern Ships as blockade runners and for the CSA Navy.  Was the US dependent on England in 1865?  Doesn’t look like it to me…
(12)  For the Fifty Years after 1865-1915, American Aristocrats defined themselves largely by their trips to England, education in English Colleges and Universities, or U.S. (e.g. Harvard & Yale) imitation of English College and University styles—this was a matter of U.S. Money going to England for Validation, to be sure, and also of U.K. investment coming to the United States, but the relationship was one of Equals, not of Colonial Office and Master.
(13) 1915  the Lusitania sank–some people say it was a fix, a false flag attack.  BUT, even after the Lusitania, and a lot of other moves, it took a LOT OF PROPAGANDA, and the Zimmerman telegram, to get the United States to join England and France in the War on Germany and Austria-Hungary.  Some say it took the Balfour Declaration and the support of U.S. Jews….who were mostly of German and Eastern European Origin….
(14)   But the simple truth is that IF the mythology were correct, if England or the British Crown still exercised ANY sort of lasting control over the former 13 colonies—by 1912 multiplied into 48 states with several associated colonies of their own—IF that mythology of continued British Domination were correct, the South would have won the War of 1861-65, and if there had been a World War I at all, the United States would have joined with the U.K., as did all the real dominions including Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, and the only recently formed Union of South Africa, in 1914.
(15)   It is interesting to reflect that, in 1912, American Colonies abroad included the Philippine Islands in East Asia and Hawaii in the Middle Pacific, both of which the U.S. held in competition with Great Britain for colonial power in the Pacific.
(16)   Hawaii, all its history considered, should have belonged to England if to anyone.  Hawaii had included, as part of its own flag, the British Flag or Union Jack, evidence of the close alliance between the Hawaiian monarchy and the British Navy….which ever since Captain Cook had been the instrument for the world integration and continued independence of what they called “the Sandwich Islands”…. put the Hawaiian flag side-by-side with the Flag of British Columbia…. or read how the Hawaiian kings and queens copied English royal and legal culture slavishly, in every way possible, and you will see just how different America’s path really was.
(17)   It is true that the American colonies due owe their legal heritage, language, and many aspects of their philosophy, to England, and it is also true that the Queen of England, as a wealthy private individual, has a substantial “empire” of investments all over the U.S., but so do the Imperial family of Japan, and the Royal House of Saud (from Saudi Arabia).
(18)    The Queen of England is one of the wealthiest individuals with some of the largest landholdings in the world, but the House of Windor’s private holdings and investments ALL date from the 19th century, NOT from pre-Revolutionary or colonial times.
(19)    So as interesting as it may be to speculate that the United States never really obtained its independence from England, it did.
(20)    One final point would be to remember the debate in Congress in 1939-1941 (before Pearl Harbor) about whether the United States should assist the United Kingdom AT ALL, in its defense.
(21)    My Galveston-Texas born grandfather Alphonse B. Meyer got a lucrative contract to clean, paint, and seal the U.S. ships that were being “lent and leased” to England pursuant to a special agreement which a Texas school-teacher turned Congressman, one Lyndon B. Johnson, representing the Texas Hill Country, pushed through Congress on behalf of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
(22)    “Lend-Lease” was basically U.S. charity to England, and so, by World War II, it would be fair to say that the Mother Country was now dependent on the Former Colonies for her very survival.
(23)     There is really very little doubt that, once she committed to War against Germany, whether that was a smart decision or not, Great Britain could not have survived as an independent nation without the full backing of the United States—which King George VI and Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill simply would not have had to beg for, had the English Crown retained “ownership and control” after the American War of Independence and Constitution of 1787, after the War of 1812, or the Civil War…..
(24)    History is VERY interesting, and more people could surely benefit from spending time studying it……
(25)       Anybody who EVER wants to discuss this further, leave your comment, e-mail, and telephone number here….I might even start giving seminars….

Do McDonald’s and Walmart Epitomize Communism or Capitalism? (A debate ongoing with Robert Stark of Santa Barbara and Robert Hurt of Clearwater)

Dear Bob & Robert:

You have read my response to Robert Stark’s incoherent and erroneous complaint regarding Capitalism as inimical to social hierarchy and the maintenance of elite classes and tastes, and now you ask me to risk wasting my time since I can never convince you of anything, but I’ll give it my best whirl here:
Communism arose (and still arises) from the desire to break down all social and cultural (i.e behavioral and material) class barriers between people.

This egalitarian tendency is what leads some to assert that communism and Christianity are compatible, or that Thomas Jefferson foresaw and advocated communism in the Declaration of Independence. Communism, most simply and purely defined, is radical egalitarianism—making every person like every other person.
I should note as an aside that while I understand both the 1776 Jeffersonian and the primitive Christian antecedents of communism, as a moral precept regarding the commonality of human needs and wants, both Jefferson and the primitive (i.e. Roman and Mediaeval) Christian Churches were inimically opposed to credit lending and banking of any kind. “Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” said Jesus, and then he drove the money changers out of the Temple, saying “You have made my Father’s house into a den of thieves.”

The next day, Jesus then washed his apostles feet before the last Supper and instructed them to serve one another and the people, as he served them, although he was their leader, the first to die and the first to be reborn—his Father’s great gift to all mankind.

Jesus and St. Paul both emphasized a certain leveling effect of the Christian concept of the salvation of the soul—but they asked that this be done as a matter of charity and giving, and voluntary service. Jefferson, for his part, fought Federalists Hamilton and Adams bitterly over the question of the banks, which he correctly regarded as the arbiters of slavery—as debt, throughout history, has always been the fundamental basis for slavery (since Ancient 3rd Milleniums Sumerian, Second Millennium Early Babylonian times and probably long before—as acknowledged in the Hebrew Bible’s celebration of the 7 year “Jubilee”—marking the period relief from debt established in and derived from Mesopotamia).

Marx & Engels’ Communist Manifesto published in London in February 1848 sought to establish an eternal system of debt to centralized institutions from which there would never be another Jubilee until the end of time. Their Manifesto systematically focuses in turn on every aspect of this leveling process: urban and rural life should be the same. Agriculture and Industry should be the same. Men and women should, as nearly as biologically possible, be the same.

In short: all barriers between, all distinguishing characteristics differentiating people should simply be erased. No one should own or consume more than s/he needs to survive, so there is some acknowledgment of differential need, but no one should own real estate, which is the fundamental basis of all social existence. Karl Marx and his followers directed that education should be restructured so as to mould all individuals into good servants of the communist plan.

As I have pointed out and written and rewritten so many times, the sinister hidden fact behind the Communist Manifesto and Marx’ entire career was the practical reality envisioned by Marx (great grandson and grand-nephew of the Rothschilds, especially Mayer Amstel Rothschild): leveling of all classes and destruction of all boundaries between people could only be achieved through central banking and leveraged buyouts through inflationary credit, and the abolition of gold and silver as monetary bases.

Although Marx & Engels focus on the leveraged buyout of land in the Manifesto, it is fairly clear that the only way that all systems of production and distribution of all industrial and agricultural goods could only be ultimately centralized through the same system of central bank financing of large “industrial armies…..especially in agriculture”, just as the only way to create a centralized apparatus of roads, highways, canals, and vehicular transport for the centrally produced products could only happen through government credit—making predatory pricing possible to wipe out all the small merchants, shop-keepers who were the very heart of capitalism which Marx & Engels so thoroughly despised.

And exactly what has Walmart done? Throughout the world, Walmart has driven small vendors out of business, even out of existence. Walmart has destroyed all vestiges of private business in countless towns and neighborhoods throughout America, Canada, and the world.

And What has McDonald’s done? Together in lock step with its mirror image brand names Burger King, Jack-in-the Box, and Wendy’s and stylistic variants like Sonic, and ethnic cuisine variants such as KFC, Popeye’s, and Taco Bell, McDonald’s has led the way in revolutionizing how and what people eat—down to the lowest common denominator—exactly what Robert Stark was complaining that capitalism did.
The construction and opening of a Walmart just next door to Teotihuacan, the largest and most extensive ruined city remaining from all of ancient, pre-Hispanic, Mexico, symbolizes to me the triumph of American-style Fabian Communism over all other forms of living and modes of production.
Yet this IDEAL of the LCD among people was NOT a Capitalistic idea, but a communistic idea.

Walmart & McDonald’s fulfill, more than any system invented in the Soviet Union, the class-leveling purpose of communism. EVERYTHING is available under one roof, of modest-to-good quality at the lowest possible price, prices made possible only by government credit extension to fund the unitary GLOBAL, WORLDWIDE centralized production and distribution of agricultural and industrial goods.

I wrote my earlier piece in response to Robert Stark’s commentary that he disliked Capitalism because Capitalism created Walmart and McDonald’s. Robert Stark could not be more wrong. Not only do Walmart and McDonald’s manifest the ideological and more importantly PRACTICAL apogee of communist aspirations for material and class leveling and merging of all classes through centralized global systems of production, distribution, and planned consumption, but Walmart and McDonald’s were NOT CREATED BY CAPITAL—i.e., by hard money investing.

Rather, in the aftermath of World War II, supermarkets and retail chains expanded and expanded ever further with governmental sponsorship though systems of direct Federal Reserve Lending and tax credits. A&P and Sears had their origins in the Railroad monopolies of the late 19th century which in turn arose from Abraham Lincoln’s first great experiments in central economic planning, the vast “credit” extended to these companies by enlisting the US Frontier Cavalry and Infantry, organized after the Civil War for the First Time as a permanent, large standing army, to preserve, protect and defend NOT the Constitution of the United States but the three great Transcontinental Railroad corporations and their land holdings—larger units of regional planning than the Tennessee Valley Authority or any other project of FDR’s New Deal, and to support the central planning of the economy of the West implied by these brainchildren of the 16th President and his Whiggish and Hamiltonian antecedents.

But the A & P, Safeway, Sears Roebuck, and other similar predecessors and antecedents were but Fabian gradualist stepping stones on the way to the perfected communism of Walmart & McDonald’s, in which all discrimination, really and truly, is ended, except for the discrimination of the integrated corporate-financial government against the people….

So compare Jeffersonian and Christian notions of equality with Marxism: only Marxist Communism, born of the Rothschild’s family lineage, advocated the use of central banking and leveraged buyouts through inflationary credit as the means of abolishing private property and centralizing all production, distribution, and standardizing all consumption in the world. In other words, only Marxist Communism had designed and prepared a road map for how to coerce the entire world into uniformity and submission.

And uniformity and submission are exactly what Walmart & McDonald’s have achieved to a degree unparalleled in the history of the world. Now they could not have done so without the Federal Reserve, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citibank, and those entities could not have existed without the blessings and tolerance of the United States President, Congress, and Supreme Court in utter subversion of the Constitution, as well as the teachings of (at least) the  Christian Bible.

In final response to your (Bob Hurt’s) and Robert Stark’s questions, I would say that the only relic of capitalism to be found at Walmart or McDonald’s is the cashier’s (whether automated or human) acceptance of cash payments in the legal tender known as Federal Reserve Notes which, by “evolutionary” heritage, trace their ancestry to notions of actual capital. The relationship between Federal Reserve Note Dollars and Capital, however, is exacty the same as the relationship of a heathen (Roman or Greek) Ghost to the human body—that relationship was called a “Shade” (Umbra) or shadow— and so, in conclusion, I would say that the cashier’s receipts of FRNs at Walmart and McDonald are merely the ghostly shades of capitalism, the mere transactional formalities of paying—against which Marx and Engels never protested.
In fact, Karl Marx always presumed a “cash” economy and wrote of the State Collecting rents from all real property, of a progressive income tax, and of minimum wages. The mere existence of cash, however, in the form of inflationary credit units, has no more relationship to capitalism than wind does to the spirit which animates a living body.

Samhain and the Celtic Pagan New Year’s Day—For All the Saints, who from their Labors Rest

I suppose that it’s the Christo-Pagan syncretism of All Saints Day/Samhain that makes me love this day best among all the holidays of the year.  This was the New Year’s Day when they burned bonfires on the hills of Scotland and Wales and Ireland even after the Anglo-Saxons had conquered the weakened, Romanized Celts of “Britannia”.

And the day of the Saints, the New Year’s Day of the Past, is also great time to reflect on the inherent ambiguity of all things, the Jungian “light” and “dark” elements within all our minds and lives.   If there’s one thing you have to accept by the time you’ve reached 52 years of age it is that absolutely nothing in the world is perfectly black or white except on theoretical physical chart descriptions of light spectrography.

Among my favorite Saints is Saint Joan of Arc, burned at the stake as a heretic in her lifetime, revered by almost the entire balance of history since her death.  Most movingly and appropriately, what is perhaps George Bernhard Shaw’s greatest play ends with the (then recently canonized) ghost of Saint Joan speaking the words, “O God that madest this beautiful earth, when will it be ready to receive Thy saints?”  When indeed will the people of Earth accept God’s saints?  Because who seems good and positive to me seems bad or destructive to you, and so my hero is your devil, and some of my heroes are also my devils, depending on what they were doing at the moment.

In the days when at least some of Christ’s Saints really mattered, their images and names were everywhere.  In Mexico, for a long time, the beautiful, eternally young, and brilliant seventeenth century poet, scholar, and linguist Sister (Spanish “Sor”) Juana Inez de la Cruz, said to be the founder of Mexican literature, was the “saint” portrayed on the thousand peso bill—called “Sor Juanas” by some and “Milagros de Sor Juana” by others, but now she’s been demoted to a mere 200 peso denomination.  Sor Juana, like Saint Joan, was overly mannish, masculine, though not in the sense of her dress or decorum as a lady—Saint Joan was a warrior who dressed as a man and struck fear into the heart of an English King and his Army, while Sor Juana struck fear into the hearts of men of the late 17th century Spanish Empire by her “unnaturally precocious” literacy and mastery of learning—she was presented at the Court of the Viceroy Marques de Mendoza at the age of 17 and examined by the leading scholars of the University who were astounded by her knowledge.

None of the American “Saints” quite have Sor Juana’s dignity and chaste elegance, or Saint Joan’s for that matter, but the banknotes on which their pictures appear have much wider circulation around the world.  Most people will agree that George Washington on the one dollar bill and Thomas Jefferson on the two dollar bill were “pretty good guys” (except of course that they were both Hemp-growing slaveholders).  George Washington’s life and childhood has become somewhat mythologized (recall the “I cannot tell a lie, I cut it with my axe” story about little George cutting down a particularly important cherry tree as a boy).  Jefferson’s once nearly saintly rep has suffered in recent years from scurrilous stories that he fathered one or more children with one or more of his slaves, notably a certain “Sally Hemings” whose descendants are still around today.  But it’s still hard to imagine what would define the United States if it were not for Jefferson’s verbiage in the Declaration of Independence and his purchase of New Orleans and the middle one third of the continent from France in 1803, among many other things.

With Abraham Lincoln on the Five dollar bill we come to more controversial territory.  The short previews for the new movie on the sixteenth president with Daniel Day Lewis in the title role suggest a totally mythologized view of “My Uncle Abe” (he’s not really, not even close on the family tree, but it’s always fun to say it) including a line that runs “no one has ever been so beloved”—and that’s just a catastrophic lie…..   Abraham Lincoln, like Julius Caesar and John F. Kennedy, was highly controversial during his lifetime, and it was assassination that achieved Sainthood for him.  Abraham Lincoln arguably did more to destroy liberty and the original constitution in the United States than anyone else besides Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the two Presidents Bush put together.  Lincoln was hated by Northern Democrats and especially New Yorkers throughout the War, and by the people of the South until the middle-to-late 20th century, who never accepted Thanksgiving as a holiday until Lincoln’s successor in supreme constitutional degradation, Franklin D. Roosevelt made it a national holiday.

Lincoln is largely canonized by American history because of his role in “freeing the slaves”, but it is reasonably clear that his real purposes were in no sense benign or kindly towards negroes, whom he wanted to deport en masse back to Africa, and it is also reasonably clear that emancipation would have happened without bloodshed or economic destruction within another generation or two at the most.  But from Mount Rushmore to Hollywood under the influence of first F.D. Roosevelt and now B.H. Obama (another relatively immigrant to Illinois who made it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in part because of playing “the black card”), Lincoln is considered a Saint—unless you love both Freedom and the original Constitution of limited government in which case he’s your worst nightmare, your Devil….

Abraham Lincoln himself was a devoted follower of Alexander Hamilton, “Saint” of the American Banking System, of Centralized Government, and of Elite Control over the masses.  Alexander Hamilton in fact loved big government so much that he was a quasi-Monarchist at first, advocating either George Washington or some German Protestant prince be crowned King of America.  And like Abe Lincoln was also shot, much to the benefit of his long-term legacy—albeit he was not exactly murdered or assassinated but merely tricked into an unfairly fought duel with the then Vice-President Aaron Burr….
So finally we come to the most ambiguous of all—a man who is truly both my hero (because he was against Alexander Hamilton and big government) and my devil (because he was unfair and unjust to people who deserved so much better, namely the American Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes.
Andrew Jackson is associated with New Orleans, the Hermitage, and Nashville.  I gave my first (and probably my best) academic presentation at the “Slayage” Conference on Buffy the Vampire Slayer in Nashville in 2004, in the shadow of the Hermitage which I visited on that occasion for about the twentieth time.  My paper was called “Buffy’s Golden Bough” and concerned precisely the modern restatement of ancient mythology for modern purposes.
I have such terribly mixed feelings about Andrew Jackson: on the one hand, he won the Battle of New Orleans (with the help of the Pirate Jean Lafitte, of course—another historical persona to whom I feel close personal PSYCHIC connexions through New Orleans, Galveston, Grand Isle, Dzilam Bravo, and the East Coast of Yucatan).  Jean Lafitte is another reason I loved New Orleans, but “Jackson Square….”  I totally celebrate what Jackson did in dismantling the Bank of the United States and protecting States’ Rights.  But I can’t bear to reflect on Andy’s oppression of the Indians, his lifetime war against them all over the South, and of course, “the trail of tears.”
The Cherokee of Georgia, in particular, were mostly Christians, they lived in Western Style homes, their Chiefs had slaves—they were totally integrated.  The old ones danced the Eagle Dance in the Mountains, but their Chiefs were good Southerners and, in fact, Chief Stand Watie was the very last Confederate General to surrender, more than two and a half months after Lee’s April 9 surrender at Appomattox, on June 23.
When the leaders of the Confederate Indians learned that the government in Richmond had fallen and the Eastern armies had surrendered, they convened a Grand Council on June 15 calling for Indian Commanders to lay down their arms.
 Stand Watie, Cherokee Chief, Commanded the largest Indian army.  He was dedicated to the Confederate Cause and was unwilling to admit defeat, so he kept his troops in the field for nearly a month after General E. Kirby-Smith surrendered the Trans-Mississippi on May 26. Watie was in command of several battalion of Creek, Seminole, Cherokee, and Osage Indians.  So even Andrew Jackson’s persecution of the Southern Civilized Indians did not defeat their Southern Patriotism—there were Slaves in Indian Territory for a Full Year after the end of the war in 1865, and the status of the descendants of those slaves is still hotly debated.
Ironically enough, if you consider Andrew Jackson to be the devil, then you would be more likely to favor Chief Justice John Marshall, who ruled in favor of the Indian rights to Northern Georgia in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and the related case of Worcester v. Georgia.   But John Marshall was a Hamiltonian Federalist, the very last of them in fact, who favored the Centralization of Power in the Federal Government and ruled in favor of the Bank of the United States.  John Marshall was the founding father of the profession of law in the United States, and every law student reveres him as a kind of saint, but all those who value liberty must regret a great many of his rulings, especially Osborne v. Bank of the United States and M’Culloch v. Maryland.  So without doubt, John Marshall has given both light and darkness to American history.  On the questions of the Bank of the United States, I would rate Jackson a Saint and Marshall a Devil, on the question of the removal of the Southern Indians, the opposite.
A great irony inheres in the historical “indigestibility”—the real problem with the assimilation of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Creek in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi was just that they rejected ONE (and ONLY ONE) Anglo-Saxon institution—they rejected private property in land.   All North American Indian Nations have in common that land is owned by the Tribe, the Community, rather than by the individual or family tribal members.  Strangely, this was not at all true of the “highly civilized” Indians of Mexico.  The Aztec and the especially the Maya were quite accustomed in prehispanic times to documenting individual or family land title by documentary evidence, and the Colonial Spanish courts were filled with such conflicts.
To think of the conflict between the Whites and Indians crystalizing along those lines, communal property vs. private property, contemporaneous when the years when F. Engels and Karl Marx were a couple of bourgeois teenagers and in their twenties, creates a strange series of Hegelian dialectic conflicts indeed.  And the scale becomes grayer and grayer the closer one looks at the details.
I’ve been reading a lot of Marx recently—his editorial position on things is really no different from the New York Times/LA Times—and his social critique of England is awfully close to that of Charles Dickens’ novels.  All Marxist schemes of cultural evolution were challenged by the events in the first 19th century in the Southern USA—whose financial capital was New Orleans….
Even Marx himself has light and dark sides.  His dark side obviously manifested in creating the communist and socialist party movements which have all but now successfully destroyed Western Civilization.  But he was a brilliant economist and effectively the founder of all modern social sciences, and of the concept of cultural evolution which shapes those sciences.
On these things and so many more I am spending the first day of the Celtic New Year…. and of the ambiguity and uncertainty of Sainthood on All Saints’ Day…..

People Dream of Freedom when they Go to the Movies—and it’s been a big year for Anarchist Fantasies….Katniss & Peeta, Suzy & Sam, and now the Bondurants….

Aside from “Batman: The Dark Knight Rises”, it’s been a great year, so far, for anarchist philosophy in film.  Anarchism is a terribly misunderstood word: in historical and linguistic terms, “anarchy” does not mean or suggest, by any stretch of the imagination, a society without order or laws.  “Anarchy” is in no way whatsoever synonymous with “Chaos”, “Chasm”, or “Void.”

In Ancient Greek, “archon” was a rather generic title for a rule or lord, meaning and semantically similar in meaning to German “Fürst/Führer” or Latin “Princeps/Principio.”  “Archaeology” is the study of “beginnings” as everyone known, beginnings of humans anyhow, not quite as ancient as “Palaeontology” which the study of “Old Life Forms” including the “Dawn Horizon” (Eocene) at the border between geology and biology.   A Prince (princeps) is a Fürst is an Archon, in any event, and to believe in AN-ARCHY is to oppose Princes (Princeps, principes, Fürsts, or Führers), in other words to believe that society can exist without LEADERS who wield any sort of absolute or even decisive power.  That is why our leader under the Constitution was named after the person who simply “presides” over the Congress and government—indeed, the first to bear the Title “President of the United States” before George Washington were ALL merely parliamentary “presiders”… the individuals who maintained the order of debate, recognized speakers, hit the gavel for adjournment and such like distinctly NON-military, NON-coercive functions…. The Vice-President is still the President of the Senate and presides at Joint Sessions of Congress…. but the American President has become a Führer –and shows signs of being the office is showing signs of becoming an hereditary principality—with Roosevelts and Kennedys and Bushes dominating the political landscape for most of a century….

The basic conceptual link between “fürst” “princeps“, “archon“, “archaeology” and “principio” was the equation of “first in time, first in power, first in right” (compare George Washington “First in War, First in Peace, First in the Hearts of his Countrymen).  And there were those who wanted to make Washington a real “prince”, “fürst” or “archon“—among them pseudo-Monarchists such as Alexander Hamilton).   A similar semantic construct is the “council of elders” out of whom the “Princeps” may be selected, otherwise known as “the Senate.”  From Latin “Senectus” = Old Age/Old Man, cf. Cicero’s De Senectute “On Old Age.”

The Hunger Games came out with a bang on March 22, and Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark became my favorite Anarchist leaders of the year (under the Tutelage of Haymitch Abernathy) until they were supplanted (not in my affections, or literary appreciations but in the movie theaters) by Suzy Bishop and Sam Shakusky (under absolutely nobody’s tutelage but the eventual protection of a brilliantly anarchistic but otherwise “sad, dumb policeman” named Captain Sharp played by none less of a long-time portrayer of anarchistic characters than that legendary Teuton from the cold and free side of the Rhine, Bruce Willis).   And this all happened in a very real 1965 spot in New England on the Fictitious Island of “New Penzance” under Wes Anderson’s really fairly brilliant direction and writing (with Roman Coppola).

But just Wednesday a new marvelous and historically founded paean to actual 20th century anarchism, appropriately called “Lawless”, celebrates the Virginia “Hillbilly” Bondurant Family from Franklin County (actually, they lived in the Hills east of the Blue Ridge, southeast of the Shenandoah Valley in Franklin County, so the hills were kind of low….).  Turns out that the book “Wettest County in the World” was written by a certain Matt Bondurant who was the grandson of the chief leader of the family.

Unlike The Hunger Games, it is largely devoid of mythological and epic references or archetypes.  Unlike Moonrise Kingdom it is neither allegorical nor atavistic.  Lawless simply celebrates the last time in the United States when a large portion of the population, the majority in fact, absolutely, positively, unquestionably recognized that “the law was an ass”.   Not only Catholics and heavy drinkers of every religion but ALL sane people opposed Prohibition and only perverted-to-pathological idiots and cynical criminals (both in and out of politics) actually supported it.  The current “War on Drugs” is in no principled way different from Prohibition, but the mechanisms of propaganda are such much more sophisticated these days that few people appreciate it.

But what unifies The Hunger Games, Moonrise Kingdom, and Lawless is this simple truth: JUSTICE IS AT ITS MAXIMUM WHEN ADMINISTERED BY THE PEOPLE FOR THEMSELVES WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE FROM THE GOVERNMENT—ANY GOVERNMENT.

Governments exist, in essence, to defend the people against wars, to enforce laws which make some of the people criminals and disenfranchise them to the benefit of those who either profit from or obtain their identity as “fürstin“, “principes“, or archons from the oppression of others.

Prohibition movies are an old trope, and there’s nothing all that extraordinary about Lawless except that it’s apparently, largely, mostly true…  But it DOES so totally fit in with my two leading movies of this year as a celebration of the nobility of the free human spirit to maintain freedom at the cost of blood…. and such values cannot be too often celebrated in these Modern United States of America where everyone seems to be enjoying the ride, enjoying the “protection racket” of the criminal government which has, for the most part, completely enslaved us, and does so no less (but always more) during each successive Republican or Democratic administration….