The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPeter Lee Archive
Hispanic Hamilton…and Mob vs. Snob
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

To escape the soul-killing political minutiae inhabiting my Twitter timeline, I decided to trawl my own blog archive for diversion…and came across a piece I wrote in September 2013 on Alexander Hamilton!

Yes, Alexander Hamilton, current darling of the Washington set and central figure of an ethnically enhanced hip-hop musical that apparently provides the soundtrack and a sense of deeper meaning to liberal lives.

Reading the Chernow biography and Hamilton’s own writings, it is hard not to have a deep admiration for Hamilton (Chernow, by the way, collects a nice royalty from the musical). Way back in 2013, I saw Hamilton as the sophisticated urban/internationalist counterpoint to the pastoral/racist/secessionist stylings of Thomas Jefferson.

Today, in 2016, however, Hamilton serves mainly as an avatar of elite rule opposed to Jeffersonian ideas of democracy, and that’s more meh to me.

My 2013 piece was entitled Mob vs. Snob and, since it was punishingly long, I’m going to tease out the good, currently relevant bits here for the amusement and reflection of the 2016 audience.

As readers might gather from the title of the piece, I see a lot of US history as squaring the circle between the economic and political aspirations of the ordinary citizen a.k.a. the Mob vs. the laser focus of the elites a.k.a. Snob on securing the protection of their property, privileges, and power.

I see Hamilton as an important figure because he recognized that the key issue for the nascent federal system—and indeed most political systems we know today– was how to attract and retain the loyalty of elites to present a central government/elite united front against secessionism. The US government protected the economic interests of elites and in return, elites protected the federal government against the threat of secession. Kinda. Glitched a bit during the Civil War, among other times.

Nowadays the federal government doesn’t worry overmuch about secession, but elites sure worry about the mob i.e. “runaway populism”. And when it comes to allaying elite anxieties, the federal government and political parties are here to help!

2016 is doing a great job of affirming this dynamic as the Washington establishment and the propertied classes close ranks against Lumpenfuhrer Donald Trump. So did Brexit, by the way, which provoked open discussions of why rule by an informed and engaged elite was infinitely preferable to turning over the direction of the nation to an uninformed and easily manipulated rabble.

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, and the Democrats intentionally ran a racially inflected “intersectional” campaign that identified overcoming oppressive white racism as a key social and political issue confronting the nation.

The Republican elite apparently accepted the proposition that the white bloc was a burned out case, and tried to reframe the GOP as a vehicle for the aspirations of upwardly mobile Hispanics. The Hispano-pander, keyed on profoundly unattractive and incapable campaigners Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Ted Cruz, foundered spectacularly.

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

I might as well note here, that I do not see Donald Trump as Hitler. He’s a carny barker—the Wizard of Oz was a displaced carny barker, by the way—whose grift runs counter to current elite priorities. So he’s the target of the full measure of exaggerated spittle in defense of globalized economic and security policies that support the economic interests of the elite, and attacks exhibiting a thoroughgoing disdain for non-expert/non-elite rule. Remarkable to me, at least, because following the wisdom of elites has been a barely contained disaster for the last two decades…and apparently nobody wants to talk about that.

Meanwhile, “people of color” are replacing whites as the political parties’ and elites’ ostensible raison d’etre i.e. representing “the nation” whose elevated aspirations and virtuous interests they profess to embody and advance. And, more to the point, elites co-opt the leaders and secure the votes of the POC community, thereby weakening the “mob” and strengthening the “snob”.

Lumpen white impulses, not African-American radicalism, is now the dangerous (i.e. disenfranchised and needy) force that needs to be kept under control, in other words. Quite the switcheroo.

And that is why, I think, you see a Hispanic Hamilton.

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


Here’s a taste of Mob vs. Snob!

During the “end of history” period, Alexander Hamilton was often invoked as the architect of the triumph of the Western system. I am something of a pro-Hamiltonian revisionist, since the original critique of Hamilton that prevailed until the end of the 20thcentury (elite-adoring crypto aristo) was initially put forth by a pair of Virginia slaveowners, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who adored democracy in the abstract but had definite difficulties practicing it in the concrete.

Hamilton advocated a strong national government and orchestrated its establishment in the United States through his energetic participation in the composition, promotion, and, as first Treasury Secretary and George Washington’s most trusted counselor, implementation of the central-government friendly US constitution . He frequently sparred with Jefferson and Madison, whose advocacy of (to editorialize here) la-di-da pastoralism on a foundation of slavery looks a lot like an effort to protect Virginian parochialism and particularism from the commercial and industrial transformation of the United States—a transformation that Hamilton, with his early and positive exposure to the British example, clearly saw coming, and which he enabled with a powerful central government with strong fiscal, legislative, and enforcement powers.

From the 21st century perspective the key element was Hamilton’s extremely successful attempt to create a robust alliance between the federal government and northern and northeastern business interests. Hamilton was desperately invested in a strong, extensive federal union because the greater the sway of the federal government, the more unique and attractive it looked as a bulwark of power, stability, and property rights, and the better it could secure the loyalty of the elite.

Elite loyalty was, to put it mildly, an issue. Not just because of pervasive Loyalist (to Britain) sentiment in the upper classes in the colonies that carried over into the early days of the Republic. Also because the United States was created on a foundation of elite disloyalty, amplified by seditious incitement of populist forces.

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. The Sons of Liberty were despised as rabble by most of the founding fathers, but elite folk like John Adams, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, et. al. made the historic decision to stand with them, or maybe just exploit them as anti-British shock troops and provocateurs, instead of denouncing them.

The revolutionary elite retained its affection for independence and local impunity after the British were gone, and simply transferred it to the hapless and impotent post-1776 US confederation.

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 and to the endless willingness of poor and disenfranchised folk, especially in the rural western reaches, to create a rumpus.

The normally phlegmatic George Washington was vocally dismayed by the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania, and joined Hamilton in organizing an overwhelming federal force to march into the countryside and overawe the miscreants. A similar exercise in federal shock and awe occurred when Hamilton marched a federal force against another Pennsylvania upset, Fries’ Rebellion, in 1799.

In the midst of the “Quasi War” with France in the late 1790s, Hamilton had lobbied President John Adams frantically (and, for the sake of his relationship with Adams, fatally) for a federal army that Hamilton would lead under the aegis of the largely retired George Washington. This was held against Hamilton, both by Adams and Jefferson, as an open admission of Hamilton’s caesarism, since it was assumed that this army, while defending against the unlikely prospect of an invasion of the United States by Napoleon, could be used to cow the federal government or serve as the vehicle for some extra-curricular nationbuilding by Hamilton, such as the seizure and annexation of western lands—and maybe even South America–from their Spanish masters.

It seems more likely that Hamilton was carried away by the fear of a French-style rural jacquerie and Jacobin-style urban purge, perhaps sparked by some French military adventure and supported by a Jeffersonian fifth column, and wanted a federal army as a shield—and sword–against both. And, admittedly, he wouldn’t have minded leading the army through the Americas after putting paid to the French menace, thereby winning more glory for himself and more territorial swag for the USA.

But Hamilton’s efforts to create a strong federal edifice involved more than giving the central government independent military might to cow local “mobocracy” when the compromised state militias weren’t up to the task. Strengthening the bond between the federal government and US elites—and weaning them from political collusion with the ever-present and easily aggrieved “mob”—was a key feature of Hamilton’s policy.

He famously bound elites to the federal government by promising to fund all federal debts (currently trading at ten or fifteen cents to the dollar) at par, to assume all state debts dating back to the revolution, and coming up with a plausible way of paying them. He also rebuffed criticisms by Jefferson and Madison that this policy was a sell-out of the revolutionary war veterans who had been paid with these bonds but sold them at a deep discount to speculators, and an unfair windfall for Hamilton’s well-heeled and well-informed buddies.

There’s a little more to this than “the rich got richer and the poor got fucked” (though, of course, that’s exactly what happened).

Hamilton was intentionally giving the business elites some (inordinate) skin in the federal game, so that they would cleave to the federal government and not side with the mob—or their states–as they had in revolutionary times against Britain, or during any of the serial crises that would occur as the United States embarked on its bloody and highly successful campaign exploit the resources of the land, the labor and creativity of its people, the capital and energies of the elites, and the enormous potential of national and global markets.

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.

You know, like the kind of secession the 13 colonies carried out only a decade before against the British government, and was threatened every time some cluster of US states weren’t getting their way. The kind of secession that actually happened in 1861. And the kind of secession that Tea Party enclaves like northern Colorado now invoke as a solution for their Obama-related grievances. And the kind of secession (by the various Soviet SSRs and satellites) that brought the Soviet Union to its knees. And the uprising in eastern Libya (capital: Benghazi) that brought down Qaddafi with a little outside help.

In each instance of secession, the secret sauce of freedom wasn’t democracy and free markets; it was the fact that local elites abandoned their allegiance to the center and sided with the locals instead.

Before the constitution was even ratified, secession was already on the American agenda.

The most famous of the Federalist papers, No. 10, written by Madison, rebutted the idea that democracy only works in small, homogenous states and couldn’t work in an extensive empire that the United States was clearly going to become. Specifically, he argued that the republican form of government would interpose a civic-minded and unfactional elite between gormless voters and the operating levers of the government machinery.

Guess what. Madison was wrong.

Madison was also guilty of ironic foreshadowing, since he and Jefferson connived to create the first rebellious, elite-splitting faction in the US government, during the administration of John Adams.

The United States was bedeviled from its inception by the centripetal tendencies of its states and regions. Stability and a significant measure of unity was only achieved after eighty years of escalating confrontation, through the rather undemocratic means of a massive civil war and a ten year occupation of the south.

And guess what. You can blame Madison for that, too.

To me, the alpha and omega for Jefferson and Madison was southern privilege. They recognized early on that southern privilege was based on a rickety, limited foundation of slavery-based agriculture, which was increasingly at risk in a strong federal system as the nation grew and industrialized and decisively moved away from the southern model. If the constitution didn’t adequately support pretensions to southern political, economic, and social agency for the white crowd, it could go out the window.

Jefferson and Madison pioneered the state nullification doctrine in their Kentucky and Virginia resolutions and initiated seventy years of efforts to maintain southern autonomy which culminated in the Civil War. After Hamilton shattered his Federalist faction with some unwise political maneuvers, Jefferson and Madison ruled the federal roost and the contradictions between the slave-owning priorities of the south and the rest of the union were papered over. Pro-Jeffersonian history usually excuses Jefferson and Madison’s transgressions on the grounds that their nullification and state’s rights doctrines embodied in the Resolutions were a desperate and limited riposte to the flagrantly partisan and unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts.

Not so fast. Secession, which I define as elite disloyalty combined with populist politics, a.k.a. the “mob and snob” revolutionary alliance, is as American as apple pie and suited the tastes of Jefferson and Madison.

It wasn’t just the south that toyed with secessionist impulses. Northern secession was advocated by northern business classes frustrated by southern resistance to Federalist fiscal and economic policies and the fear that the “Virginia faction” had permanently captured the Federal government thanks to the inordinate weight of the south at the center thanks to the 3/5 rule (slaves counted at 3/5 for representation purposes) and the ceaseless, united obstructionism of southern delegations anxious to safeguard their dominance (and the future of the slave system) as the nation expanded.

One of the many reasons for Hamilton’s disdain for Aaron Burr that provoked the fatal duel was that Burr was looking to resurrect his political fortunes by conniving to bring his home state of New York into a nascent northern secessionist camp championed by elites in the New England states.

When the Federalist party imploded thanks to Hamilton’s spectacular political misjudgment and Jefferson and his acolytes controlled the Federal government for decades, northeastern interests organized the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812 to advance their pro-British/anti-embargo/pro-manufacturing interests and priorities. Their activities carried the faint but undeniable whiff of secession. The governor of Massachusetts even dispatched an emissary to discuss a separate peace with Great Britain. This treasonous exercise never caught on, as the war ended rather abruptly and favorably for the United States, much to the discomfiture of the northerners and, in any case, the subsequent peace provided the economic benefits that had previously been denied them.

After three decades of southern domination, federal power inexorably shifted to the north and west, and the US government, while sedulous in preserving the financial, legal, and coercive foundations of northern prosperity, proved itself fatally ambivalent about protecting a key southern elite interest and the foundation of the southern agricultural economy—slaves as property. When southern elites felt threatened by the prospect of loss of political primacy at the federal level and the threat of a growing abolitionist consensus in Congress, they were wedged off from the union (much as the business interests in the colonies were wedged off from Britain in the 1770s) and turned their efforts to creating a “mob and snob” integrated power base within their own states.

The result was decades of dismal extortion as the south used the threat of resistance/nullification/secession to extract assurances of continued passivity from the federal government on the slavery issue.

When the civil war came, many of the southern elite quickly abandoned their allegiance to the federal government and jointed the CSA.

I also might point out that the mayor of New York City, with its textile and export economy tied to southern cotton, actually proposed New York secession in 1861. The dreaded “mob and snob” alliance between some disgruntled New York plutocrats, Tammany politicians, Copperheads (anti-war Democrats willing to accept southern slavery) and the municipal lumpen re-emerged, culminating in the gruesome draft riots of 1863.

When the end came, it didn’t come thanks to the invincible ideas of democracy and free markets (with the obvious and execrable exception of slavery, southern economic and political practices did not differ significantly from those of the north); it came because the elites of the north united with the federal government to crush the south with their armies and industrial power.

With the civil war, the southern elites and their determinedly non-industrial, non-financial slave-shackled economy lost the argument to the determinedly industrial and financially sophisticated north. Conquest, the end of slavery, and the increasing industrialization of the United States made secession, southern or otherwise, an unfeasible option.

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.

This is not the triumph of democratic republicanism and free markets; it was the successful reaffirmation of elite solidarity with the federal government.

With the disappearance of the secessionist option, the impetus toward a “mob and snob” alliance evaporated, and elites and the federal government eagerly joined hands to protect property, privilege, and the well-being of elites, by gun and bayonet if needed.

(Republished from China Matters by permission of author or representative)
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Alexander Hamilton, Donald Trump 
Hide 57 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. artichoke says:

    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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

    • Replies: @boogerbently
  4. Rehmat says:

    “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.

  5. Durruti says:

    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

    • Replies: @Brando4
  6. 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.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  7. tbraton says:

    “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.

    • Replies: @Logan
  8. AG says:

    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.

    • Replies: @King George III
  9. Pandos says:

    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.

  10. joe webb says:

    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

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    , @Marcus
  11. 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.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  12. @AG

    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.

    • Replies: @Outwest
    , @Alden
  13. @joe webb

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

    • Replies: @joe webb
  14. joe webb says:

    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.


    Now whites are awakening to the chink threat. The No There there chinkdom. It is possible that Jews , having interbred so much with whites…you simply see it in their genotypes, that the genes of the Semite have been diluted enough to civilize many of them. This does not obtain with regard to the Other Semites, the Arabs/muzzies who are crazy and stupid, the worst combination.

    They lacked the ability to liberate themselves…as they are still run by rabbis and Big Man types. Take Israel with its cult of the Military Man, which is a direct descendant of Old Testament worship of the Messiah who was always a warrior. Genotype in Israel is much more semitic than here.

    Israel is returning to Type if you watch the news…the Type is genetically determined….Big Man, with club. They wield the club here as well. And the only reason they get away with it is the goofy fundamentalist and semi-fundamentalist Christians who got this Thang for Jehovah.

    More warts on Whites, But jews and chinks are warts themselves on the Body Genetic of homo-sapiens. In other words, Whites only have elevated homo sapiens to relatively democratic and objective standards. The first complete naturalist was Thales, a Greek of course. He said that all phenomena was natural, not magical, etc. Hence science, and Rationality and a respect for human frailty as well, as well as a respectful admiration for superior people. Never mind Beauty, etc, which the white race pretty much monopolizes.

    Evolution, Rationality, Good breeding, high intelligence, etc. The master race in other words. And the untermenschen resent it. Nietzschean insights of some value.

    Chinks and jews still believe in magic, along with their retarded bros in Africa, etc.

    Joe Webb

  15. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @random observer

    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…

  16. Outwest says:
    @King George III

    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.

  17. @joe webb

    why, hello there, nazi wannabe.

    • Replies: @joe webb
  18. Sherman says:

    Hey Homer

    There’s a mistake in your post.

    You left out the part about the secret Zionist Jews.


  19. Brando4 says:


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

    • Replies: @Durruti
  20. Chuck says:
    @joe webb

    “…Chinks and jews still believe in magic”

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

    • Replies: @joe webb
  21. @Rehmat

    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.

  22. Sean says:

    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.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  23. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @joe webb

    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:

    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:

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

    • Replies: @AG
  24. AG says:

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

  25. @boogerbently

    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.

  26. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    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.

    • Replies: @Outwest
    , @Sean
  27. Durruti says:

    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.

    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?

  28. Outwest says:

    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.

  29. mtn cur says:

    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.

  30. joe webb says:

    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

  31. @joe webb

    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?

    • Replies: @helena
  32. 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).

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  33. 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!!!

  34. helena says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    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

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  35. Marcus says:
    @joe webb

    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.

    • Replies: @joe webb
  36. Marcus says:
    @Connecticut Famer

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

  37. @helena

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

  38. joe webb says:

    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?

    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

    • Replies: @Marcus
    , @Daniel Chieh
  39. joe webb says:
    @Astuteobservor II

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

  40. Sean says:

    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!

  41. Sean says:

    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.

  42. Marcus says:
    @joe webb

    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.

  43. @joe webb

    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.

  44. Sean says:

    “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)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  45. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    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.

    • Replies: @Sean
  46. Sean says:

    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.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  47. @Alden

    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.

    • Replies: @Joe Martin Jr.
  48. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

  52. @King George III

    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.

  53. @animalogic

    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..

  54. Logan says:

    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.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Lee Comments via RSS
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.