a) Environmental top down (also known as authoritarian modern liberalism, liberal fascism, and "neo-Jacobinism," all of which describes what America has become today)
b) Environmental bottom up (also known as contemporary anarcho-libertarianism, this is a "sanitized," non-racialist, non-ethnic version of the American Old Right)
c) Genetic top down (also known as authoritarian racial nationalism, this includes German national socialism and Zionism.)
d) Genetic bottom up (I call this libertarian racial nationalism. This is also known as 19th century classical liberalism, the American Old Right, and Paleo-Conservatism)
e) Mutualism vs. Parasitism (Productive practices vs. criminality. The latter include political corruption, organized crime, and subversion).

Environmental top down

This article presupposes that the reader has already read my "Top Down vs. Bottom Up" discussion. In that article, I explain how "Environmentalism" essentially means "leftism." "Top down" typically means "more centralized" and involving "more government." As a line of intellectual analysis, the environmental top down viewpoint tends to look at social, economic, and political problems on an aggregate level. It tends to look to the government and other big organizational entities for solutions. It tends to view conflicts more in terms of competing factional and class interests as opposed to racial, religious, or ethnic groups, although the concept of a faction can sometimes overlap any of these latter categories, hence at times blurring the distinction between "left" and "right."

Where we are today

The whole philosophical structure of American government today is almost the exact opposite of what it once was during the administration of Thomas Jefferson. In the early 1800's America had almost no government by contemporary standards. The society was heavily based on private property rights. It was openly white racial nationalist, as defined by the immigration act of 1790. It was also wary of foriegn entanglements. Finally, America was focused on the internal development of science, technology, and local industry. These elements comprised an ideological package commonly referred to as 19th century classical liberalism.

Today, the American government has become a global super state that dominates all areas of America life. It routinely violates private property rights with massive wealth redistributions. It also promotes anti-white multiracialism and internationalism. It is also a bullying global super cop and hit man for Israel. Trading paper and running up debt is more important than manufacturing real and useful things at home.

Tthe transition over the last two hundred years has been so extreme, that both classical liberals and classical conservatives of the 19th century seem to play in the same intellectual sand box compared to their counter parts today. In regard to such issus as U.S. entanglements abroad, state intervention in the economy, and subordination of the individual to the state, both modern liberals and modern conservatives are almost the exact opposite of both 19th century classical liberals and classical conseratives.

Using the matrix scheme portrayed above, over a two hundred year period, America moved diagonally upward from a "genetic bottom up" or "libertarian racial nationalist" philosophical position to an "environmental top down" position. According to many libertarians, what we have today might be refered to as "liberal fascism" or "the Orwellian neo-Jacobin Welfare Warfare Global Super State that Wages Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace." (my favorite phrase).

At the risk of oversimplifying, American history can be divided into two broad parts.

The first is American history leading up to the War Between the States. This was the era of "true federalism" and a genuine limited republic. During this era, government was kept below 5% of GDP. America repeatedly rejected the efforts to install two central banks in favor of a decentalized hard money system. States passed laws against public works projects, seeing them as corrupt boondoggles.

In this era of the limited republic, American political leaders believed that government was at the very best a necessary evil. "True federalists," such as Thomas Jefferson, believed that the central government must be kept weaker than the states. Furthermore, Jefferson stated in his Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 that the threat of secession was the most effective form of defense of individual liberty in existence. Jeffeson also commented that "When government fears the people, you have liberty. When people fear the governmennt, you have tyranny."

The second era commenced with the Abraham Lincoln dictatorship during the War Between the States. The national ideology transitioned from "true federalism" to "neo-Jacobinism." The Jacobin revolution fomented by Lincoln retreated somewhat in the late 1800's, but then became a permanent fixture with the creation of the income tax and the privately owned Federal Reserve Banking System in 1913. During the Woodrow Wilson Administration, we saw dramatic curtailment of civil liberties and expansion of federal bureaucracy following America's massive foreign entanglement in a Great European War in 1917. Today total govenment taxes about 50% of GDP (to include local, state, excise, federal, and other taxes) and employs about 25% of the work force. Today most Americans are very fearful of their government.

In this era of neo-Jacobin ideological "air superiority" promulgated by America's controlled national media, government is no longer viewed as a necessary evil. Rather, "Jacobinism" means that government becomes an appropriate and necessary instrument to effect leftist social reengineering schemes. It becomes a Warm and Wonderful Thing that can allegedly solve all our social problems, shrewdly create wealth, and wisely dispense "social justice." Creating more government size, regulation, and intervention means creating more "Wonderful." Government now knows best, such whether or not to bother our pretty little heads about who killed John F. Kennedy or why we should worry about depleted uranium or Israeli nukes or other trifling details that surely only government technocrats can really understand. All of this increasingly became the New Revelation taught in our colleges and universities after World War I.

Some obvious analytical questions

How did all of this happen? Furthermore, we might ask if this incredible transition was ever really necessary or desirable. How might it have it have been avoided?

What are the major historical milestones in which America took big jumps both in the size of government and the redistribution of wealth and political rights? What were the underlying causes?

Why did classical liberals both in America and Great Britain, who originally stood for limited government and prevention of special privilege at the beginning of the 19th century, morph into favoring the opposite by the end of the 19th century?

Some important definitions

I use terms such as "statism," "fascism," and "Jacobinism," and "mercantilism." This article is about America's steady march from relatively simple, honest, and decentralized government very close to the citizenry in the colonial period to a very aloof, fascistic, and globally imperialistic central government over the span of two hundred years. The ideology that has helped to justify this devolution can be broadly termed "neo-Jacobinism."

Generally speaking, there is usually no one single criterion that can define each individual term such as "statism," "jingoism," "fascism," "Jacobinism," and "mercantilism." Rather, these terms typically involve a laundry list of charachterisitcs that when taken together, show a pattern that helps to confirm an overall diagnosis.

As an example of some complexities, under President Theodore Roosevelt the U.S. Government was extremely "statist" in tone, style, and spirit. However, the government had not yet implanted internal institutions in peacetime such as a privately controlled central bank, income tax, and national police force (such as the FBI, ATF and Dept of Homeland Security) that could efficiently transmit state power among the general populace in peacetime. While the U.S. Government had created a central bank and an income tax under the Abraham Lincoln dictatorship, these measures had been viewed by most Americans as temporary wartime exigencies and had been largely disbanded by the time of Teddy Roosevelt. In essence, while the Federal Government had become very statist in style, it still lacked underlying fascist infrastructure. In fact, America still had enormous pockets of the old lassiz fair, limited republican system that had preceeded the Lincoln dictatorship.

Despite real world complexities, I believe that I can offer some brief definitions that help the reader get a working sense of what these terms mean.

Statism is the belief that perpetually developing the institutions which characterize a "state" is desirable as an end in itself. People typically associate the state with an executive office, a representative or advisory body, a military, a post office, a court system, police, and various administrative offices that claim to represent, monitor, or regulate vital functions of a country. Symbols include a flag, national anthem, and monuments to military victories. Statist symbols often include very expensive meeting areas and executive offices that look like giant Roman Temples or Baroque palaces that are meant to awe citizens with a magical sense of grandeur regarding their government.

Sometimes the motives behind statism are dark. For example, international bankers like statism, because it creates within a country a strong single source who can claim the authority to take on more loans. The Diary of an Economic Hitman talks about how international bankers often like to feed loans to developing countries in the same cynical manner that pushers like to foist drugs on potential addicts. Similarly, an important motive by America's New York City-based financial elite for the creation of the U.S. Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation was to better consolidate Revolutionary war debt held by different states within a stronger Federal government to make debt collection easier.

Significantly, one can also define terms such as "statism" by what a society is not. For example, in its public discourse a statist society tends to reject the Hayekian concept of spontaneous order and the importance of decentralizing decision nodes in a complex society, or the belief that government bureaucracy is vastly less efficient than the private sector, or the libertarian view that government is an inherently dangerous predator and that centralization leads to corruption and tyranny.

Jingoism This is a brand of narrow patriotism that focuses on statism to the exclusion of most other patriotic values, to include loyalty to the survival of ones own race, ethnicity, and to anti-tyrannical republican principles, all of which constitute the deeper components of nationalism and popular soveriegnty. In contrast to the Jingoist who tends to remain blindly loyal to the U.S. Government regardless of how corrupt and abusive it might become, the true patriot is prepared to engage in open dissent, civil disobedience, or promote more extreme measures such as agitate for a national strike, secession, or the revolutionary overthrow of the U.S. Government if it becomes a tyranny, a Jewish supremacist lap dog, or promotes various forms of racial and cultural genocide towards white people.

Fascism is a severe form of statism where government engages in massive intervention in the economy and suppression of political rights on almost all levels. "Corporatism" is a term used by Mussolini to denote the way government becomes a major partner with select businesses, generally granting special privileges, subsidies, monopolies, and exemptions from free market competition.

It is important to note that the existence of large, authoritarian corporations alone does not in itself necessarily imply "fascism" or its analog "corporatism." In fact, there have been many large corporations that have tried to operate with decentralized management systems and avoid government subsidy. An important criterion for fascism exists when corporations of any size partner up with the government in ways that grant businesses special privileges and seriously distorts or crowds out the free market.

When a government completely takes over private industry, that is usually called some form of socialism or communism. However, when government relaxes its tentacles just enough so that the private sector still has a pulse and can barely breathe, that tends to be fascism by default.

Another important symptom of fascism is the extent to which the government tries to focus the public's attention on visions of grandeur and turn itself into a quasi-religious icon, often as a smokescreen to hide its own failings or its need to run rough shod over the interests of certain citizen groups.

A fascist government usually has it hands on all the levers of power necessary to impose its will on most sectors of society. It controls a central bank, which enables it to print money and effectively tax its citizenry without representation (inflation is a form of hidden taxation). Fascist government itself, or more commonly the oligarchy behind the scenes that controls the fascist government, almost always controls national media and can freely propandize citizens with highly edited information. Fascist governments typically engage in central planning and heavy regulation of the economy, giving the government the ability to make, break, or indirectly subvert businesses at will, to include businesses run by political rivals such as Henry Ford's Ford Motor Company. (Ford was subverted by such measures as state-supported leftist organized labor agitation, hostile Jewish controlled national media, an attempt by an unknown source to run him off the road, and the possibility that FDR would haul him before his Great Sedition Show Trial of 1944 for his involvement with the America First Committee). Lastly, fascist government has numerous national enforcement agencies, such as the IRS, ATF, and FBI, that can arbitrarily intimidate citizens with the threat of harsh penalties for minor infractions.

It is very common for governments in time of war to enact extreme measures that make them de facto fascist entities. War, or a phony pretext for war, is a major historical reason why many countries have resorted to fascism. Central planning used to aid a war effort also helps to condition the public to accept close government involvement with private industry on a permanent basis.

The threat of communist takeover is another important reason why some societies such as Spain and Italy became fascist in the 1920's and 1930's. In this case, one authoritarian system was deemed necessary to pre-empt another, on the theory that fascist societies are more likely to eventually return back towards libertarian institutions once crises have passed than communist countries.

Jacobinism is a leftist ideology that generally seeks to run roughshod over ethnic, racial, and regional differences to create an integrated social order under a supreme government in service of a leftist social vision. It not only exhalts an authoritarian state in service to leftist ideals, but apologizes for coercive measures that implement social re-engineering schemes. "Legitimate" techniques for spreading its social gospel schemes might include mass guillotine executions of own citizens, marching on Russia, or crushing the Confederate States of American and imposing an onorous "Reconstruction."

Mercantilism involves active measures taken by goverment to tax, regulate, or steer international trade. On a scale that measures government economic manipulation, mercantilism is a quantum level above protective tarrifs, which tend to simply serve as fairly passive excise taxes on international trade. However, mercantilism as also tends to be a quantum level below full-blown fascism, because it can pertain to narrowly focused economic manipulation by the government that does not necessarily imply government efforts to manipulate the rest of society. Significantly, the permanent existence of protective tariffs can help shape a class of spoiled, greedy, arrogant industrialists who then campaign to grab more power and privilege with mercantilism. This in turn can set the stage for the development of an even greedier faction that eventually pushes for full-blown fascism. By the same token, it is also true that protective tarrifs do not necessarily lead to mercanitilism and then on to fascism any more than smoking cigarettes necessarily lead on to smoking marijuana and then on the heroin addiction. Nevertheless, libertarians feel that these things point in the wrong direction.

The evolution of the Necessary Evil up until 1861

As we trace the evolution of burgeoning Federal government, there some important baseline facts we need to establish about the colonial period

First, the original thirteen colonies frequently acted like independent countries. They had their own legislatures. They often raised their own militias for seperate military campaigns. For example, Massachusetts raised militias to raid Frenchmen in Nova Scotia, Virginia raised militias to fight French and Indians in western Pennsylvania, and Georgia raised militias to fight in Spanierds in Florida. Sometimes a colony would refuse a request by another colony for troops to support in a campaign. Interestingly enough, in the Peace Treaty of 1783 that ended the American Revolution, Great Britain recognized each colony as if it were a separate soverign state.

In his book The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Repulicans, William Everdell talks about how these early colonial legislatures were republican in nature. While they certainly were not "politically correct" by contemporary standards, given that voting and participation was generally restricted to white males with property, they were amazingly honest, efficient, and responsive to local needs by contemporary standards. During this approximate 140 year period in early American history, Everdell thinks America had some of the best governments in its history. You would never guess this from most contemporary textbooks that keep most of this in the memory hole. Instead, modern liberal historican like to extol the era of highly centralized federal government that strong-arms the modern liberal agenda.

A second important fact is that Americans had virtually no government by contemporary standards. Almost everything was handled on a grass roots level. All charity was privatized. Many state functions relied heavily on local volunteer help, such a helping law enforcement, manning militias, and running fire departments. There were no income taxes. For most people, the only time they ever had contact with government up through the early 1800's was when they went to the Post Office.

A third important fact is that the American Revolution was a basically a libertarian revolution. Americans opposed taxation and British mercantilist policies that sought to restrain their trade. They opposed distant and authoritarian government control. You can read further details in the Declaration of Independence. They are all fundamentally libertarian in nature.

Significantly, most New Englanders traced their ancestors back to Puritans who fought on the Parliamentary side of the English Civil War. They had long historical memories stretching back to Anglo-Saxons who suffered under the "Norman Yoke." There were also Scotch-Irish and Celtic peoples among the colonists with their own heroic and long historical memories. They had inalienable rights by virtue of their ancestry, heritage, and manliness that were completely distinct from government. They provided for themselves in the Wilderness and created government only to the extent that it served their needs, not the other way around. They did not need government to give to them anything, but rather regarded government growth as potential nuisance and source of tyranny that had to be constrainted.

All the verbiage not only within their state constitutions, but also within the Articles of Confederation and U.S. Constitution describe what government cannot do. These documents did not give any one any rights. These men -- and their ancestors going back through time immemorial -- had always had their natural rights.

Since the colonies had previously acted like independent countries for about 140 years, it was enough of a leap just to create the Articles of Confederation under wartime conditions during the War of Independence.

Significantly, it was another big leap to go from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution in 1787. Government became significantly more centralized. So much so, in fact, that it set alarm bells among many patriot leaders such as Patrick Henry and George Mason who became known as the "anti-Federalists." (Actually they were the "true federalists" since they wanted a central government weaker than the state governments). America First Books hopes to publish the Anti-Federalist Papers, collected by Morton in 1965, in the not too distant future.

Dr. Murray Rothbard claims that the Constitution was in many ways a step back for liberty compared to the Articles of Confederation. According to Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, the so-called "Federalists" who pushed it were typically merchants and financiers who wanted to simply replace the British mercantilist system with a similar American system. "Mercantilism" means that government gives special privileges to certain select corporations. A system where government forms partnerships with corporations is also known as "corporatism," and this is typically an ingredient of "fascism." Many of these "federalists" also wanted a stronger government to collect on the Revolutionary War debt. They also wanted to support a central bank in support of New York and foreign banking interests. And in fact after the Constitution was installed, the Federal Government assumed the revolutionary war debts of the states.

Dr. Rothbard claims that most rural Americans opposed the U.S. Constitution in favor of keepiing things "as is" under the Articles of Confederation.. America had been through a recession in the mid-1780's that Federalists falsely blamed on weak government, but in fact this was an inevitable consequence of economic adjustment following Revolutionary War inflation. In addition, Federalists used their influence in the post office to hold up the mail of anti-Federalists to impede their ability to organize against them. They also high-jacked a convention originally intended to discuss amending the Articles of Confederation and turned it into a convention to create the Constitution.

Patrick Henry felt that the Constitution appealed too much to a "military mind." He predicted that if it passed, within about sixty years Northerners would invade his state of Virginia. (He was off by only a couple of decades!) Other anti-Federalists had the attitude that there was nothing so broke that it had to be fixed. After all, most of the colonies had already successfully functioned like separate countries for nearly 150 years. Why did they need to take an extra step towards centralization beyond the Articles of Confederation?

According to Gary North in "Conspiracy in Philadelphia," the U.S. Constitution was never properly ratified. Despite these reservations, the U.S. Constitution got foisted on America, and United States got its eleventh president with George Washington (that is, if we do not distinguish between the "President of the United States" under the Constitution and "President of the United States In Congress" under the Artilces of Confederation) The prior eleven presidents had served a one year term each under the Articles of Confederation. However, they usually are not mentioned in contemporary American history textbooks.

American political history up until 1861 is basically a tug of war back and forth between centralizers seeking special privilege and libertarians seeking to preserve decentralization, with the swings typically getting bigger over time and generally netting out more in favor of the centralizers, whose low cunning and financial power frequently took advantage of the ignorance and apathy of the common people.

I do not have time or space to give a blow-by-blow accounting of the swing actions back and forth, but I will try to at least gloss over the highlights.

Swinging in the direction of the more powerful, centralized social order, we have the following are some examples.

The centralizers

I have already discussed the "Conspiracy in Philadelphia," as author Gary North puts it, regarding the nefarious way that the U.S. Constitution usurped the Articles of Confederation. At the time of the usurpation, America had already had ten Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled. In contemporary histories, we somehow have to drop "in Congress Assembled" off the title to start U.S. history with a real president.

The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. President Washington raised and led an army larger than what he had at the Battle of Yorktown to suppress a relatively small rebellion over whiskey taxes in Western Pennsylvania. A number of contemporaries such as Thomas Jefferson were very disturbed by the authoritarian overtones of this muscle flexing. According to Dr. Murray Rothbard, the rebellion melted away and the army expedition to Western Pennsylvania turned into a realtive non-event. Twenty rebels were captured, and two who were tried, convicted, and pardoned. Nonethelss, many historians idolize this Fed-flexing because this kind of thing would later serve the modern liberal agenda.

Washington's Administration accompanied the creation of a first central bank under Alexander Hamilton. It was not renewed when its charter expired. Then a second central bank that created to help finance the War of 1812 was eliminated by Andrew Jackson.

Dr. Rothbard refers to Alexander Hamilton as the "Mephistophelean character of the American Revolution." Everything he did pushed in the exact opposite direction of the anti-Federalists and Thomas Jefferson.

President John Adams foisted the Alien and Sedition Laws to suppress criticism of his adminstration. This expired.

Thomas Jefferson used extra Constitutional means to make the Lousiana Purchase. This helped positioned America as a fast-growth de facto continental empire, dependent on government to aid acquistions, with an emphasis on encouraging mass cheap labor immigration to fuel growth, as opposed to positioning itself as a slower growth limited republic more selective about its citizenry.

West Point was created in response to the failure of American militias to successfully invade Canada during the War of 1812. It started creating officer cadre for a de facto professional standing army that would be capable of leading imperial ventures outside of state lines.

Andrew Jackson, a Southerner, made a serious threat of using Federal force to prevent South Carolina during the nullification crisis.

President Tyler of "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" fame was an example of a federally-funded Indian fighter. In contrast to Tennessee and Kentucky, which were largely settled by private initiatives, much of the Ohio and Illinois country and other points further west were cleared by Federal troops. This, combined with the Lousiana Purchase, gave many Americans the sense that the U.S. Government created the states rather than the other way around.

In fact, the idea that the U.S. Government created the states was a point made by Lincoln as a justification later on to invade the South. However, in regard to the original thirteen colonies this was a ridiculous statement, since they created the U.S. Government and at times functioned almost like independent countries.

President Polk deliberately sent U.S. forces into Mexican territory where he knew they would likely skirmish as a pretext to launch a war of conquest against Mexico and grab land all the way to the Pacific. Again, Americans are made to feel dependent on the Federal Government as a benevolent provider of land and other goodies.

The Whig Party, which in America and England originally consisted of emergent industrialists and entrepreneurs, morphed from demanding limited government and curbing special privilege to becoming a party that sought the opposite. They looked for ways to gain special privilege through government spending on public works, raising tarrifs, and the creation of a central bank. The Whigs would later become the Republicans under Abraham Lincoln. A key theoretician was Henry Clay, proponant of the so-called "American System" of protectionism, a central bank, and public works.

The decentralizers

In response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison published the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions respectively. They asserted the doctrine of nullification, and the right of states to secede to preserve liberty.

Thomas Jefferson downsized the Federal government as President. He also repealed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Aaron Burr courted efforts to break off part of the West to couterbalance Federal monopoly power. President Thomas Jefferson seems to "understand" and lets him wangle his way out of a treason trial. Later, Burr kills the "Mephistophelean Character of the American Revolution" in a duel. This a direct action kind of guy.

New England states threatened secession over Federal policy regarding the War of 1812. Sadly, they fail to follow through to save themselves from becoming an imperial pain in the rear to the South in 1861.

South Carolina threatened secession during the Tarrif of abominations episode.

Andrew Jackson eliminated the second Bank of the United States. A central tenant of Jacksonian Democracy and 19th century populism remained hard money and absence of a central bank.

Private citizens fight war of indepedence and establish the Republic of Texas in 1835. They satisfactorily run their own Lone Star Republic for ___ years within succumbing to absorption with the Federal Collective.

Henry C. Calhoun emerged as one of America's articulate theoreticians of states rights and laissez faire business.

Mormons establish their independent society in Utah. They attempt to fight the "Mormon War" of ___ before being involuntarily absorbed into the Federal Collective.

Martin Van Buren helped to reduce government. He avoided war with Canada. He resisted government intervention after the stock market crash of 1842. The economy healed itself and rebounded strongly within two years as a consequence of his laissez faire policies.

States passed their own immigration laws. For example, Illinois and Oregon passed laws in the 1850's preventing free Negros from entering their states, not to mention slaves which were outlawed.

America's first liberal fascist blow-out orgy

Now we come to 1861 and Saint Abraham Lincoln. I have written extensively about Saint Abe in my top down vs. bottom up section. Also, please visit all of Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo's articles in the King Lincoln archive at lewrockwell.com. Dr. DiLorenzo is author of The Real Lincoln, well worth reading. Dr. DiLorenzo's articles provide important background on the evil side of Lincoln.

It is a fact that Lincoln maneuverd the South into firing the first shot that started the war. He summarily arrested tens of thousands of people, destroyed freedom of the press, and ran roughshod over the Constitution whenever it pleasured him. He laughed uproariously when Union war criminal William T. Sherman briefed him about his rampaging army's atrocities in the South. He approved of prisoner of war conditions where men were deliberately exposed to sewage-contaminated water and half of them died. His brain was infected with syphallis, and there is strong evidence that he was a homosexual. As Sam Dickson observed in "Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln," he routinely talked out of both sides of his mouth on every major issue. According to Dr. DiLorenzo, prior to becoming President, he was the leading political fixer in Illinois, and enriched himself and his political patrons with corrupt boondogles.

I could go on in some depth, but suffice to say that I am now convinced that no reasonable person can examine all the evidence without agreeing with author L. Neil Smith that Lincoln was truly the "American Lenin." Furthermore, Saint Abe's influence has been so pivotal to American history that one cannot duck this reality. You have to deal with it head on. He was a very twisted and evil man who did more damage to America than most other Presidents.

One of Saint Abe's greatest "contributions" is the fact that under the stress of wartime his evil genius found a way to push American imperial statism to its absolute limit. He proved that if you can sugar coat tyranny with just the right Jacobin rhetoric, Americans will swallow it. He showed the formula by which American politicians can oppress Americans a hundred times worse than King George III -- and get away with it. He showed how a clever internal enemy can conquor America from within. That, apart from 640,000 American war dead and the destruction of half the wealth of the South, was his most terrible legacy.

One example of Lincoln's many Satanic sugar-coated deceptions was his Gettysburg Address. The American Old Right writer H.L. Mencken was entirely correct when he observed that the Southern cause of State's rights and independence was vastly more attuned to the spirit and letter of the Declaration of Independence than the Union cause, yet Lincoln twisted this document to make it appear that it favored Northern aggression to re-absorb the South into the Union collective at all costs. Mencken observed that Lincoln's words had nothing to do with facts and logic, and everything to do with poetry, emotion, and magical thinking.

After the smoke finally cleared in that terrible war, the great unfulfilled task for following generations of unscrupulous leaders was to exploit in peacetime the parasite vulnerabilities that Lincoln uncovered in wartime. In gratitude, our emerging new ruling elites in the 20th century firmly established Saint Abe as a Holy Fixture in the virtual reality matrix they foisted on the public, as they proceeded to permanently implement in peacetime the horrors that Lincoln had pioneered in wartime, such as brutal national media control, a central bank, an income tax, and imperialistic aggression in service to Jacobin ideals.

Georgia Lawyer Sam Dickson points out in his work "Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln," that what is now popularly accepted as the "Whig Theory of History" is in reality a secular mythology. Dickson explained:

The astonishing thing about this paper on Abraham Lincoln is that it is needed at all or is considered controversial. In my opinion, one does not have to be a scholar to ferret out obscure and suppressed facets of history to see Abraham Lincoln as he was.

My views on this subject are not unusual. They are those of the overwhelming majority of Southerners both immediately before, during and for decades after the War between the States. My views were also shared by many in the North and the West. Only the passage of time and the studious cultivation of the myth of Abraham Lincoln, coupled with his timely death (timely in the sense of being providential for his place in history) have caused Abraham Lincoln to be raised to the level of a sacred cow in American history.

Nevertheless, even contemporary events show that the place and role of Abraham Lincoln in American history are a subject which is very sensitive to the Establishment. When Professor M. E. Bradford of the University of Dallas was nominated by President Reagan to head the National Endowment for the Humanities, a storm of abuse and controversy exploded. Professor Bradford's sin was that he had the effrontery to criticize Abraham Lincoln. The New York Times launched the attack, followed by a host of other establishment liberal spokesmen and institutions and joined by so-called "neo-conservatives" such as George Will. Mr. Will excoriated Professor Bradford as "the nostalgic Confederate remnant of the Conservative movement" and made it clear that neo-conservatives have no use for any criticism of Abraham Lincoln.[1] Obviously, Professor Bradford touched a raw and sensitive nerve when he criticized a president who has been dead for over 120 years. One wonders after the lapse of so many years why this matter is such a vital, important and sensitive one.

Part of the reason for the importance of Abraham Lincoln in the iconography of the left is explained by the Whig Theory of History which is shared by most leftists in one form or another. The Whig Theory of History holds that history, in particular the history of the English-speaking peoples, is the history of freedom broadening down from precedent to precedent as progress is made away from tradition, authority, monarchy, and aristocracy toward democracy and egalitarianism. The leftist adherents to the Whig Theory of History see Lincoln as part of a continuum running from Runnymede to Cromwell to the so-called Glorious Revolution to the American Revolution to Lincoln to Wilson to Roosevelt to Kennedy and beyond.

Of course, this Whig Theory of History is preposterous and fallacious and maintained only by a thoroughly dishonest editing of historical events. However, the leftists are correct in viewing Lincoln and the effect of his career on the course of the United States as moving America away from an aristocratic society founded upon traditions, authority and property and towards a mass democratic society founded upon universal suffrage, equality and unlimited government-mandated social experimentation. While it is not remarkable that leftists should admire Abraham Lincoln, it is noteworthy and surprising that the Lincoln Myth has been marketed to moderate and conservative Americans.

America's New Age after 1861

In the earlier era, I outlined swings both towards and away from decentralization. In this new era, most of the swinging went in only one direction towards ever more centralization. The efforts towards decentralization swing backs became very weak. To use a footbal analogy, they slowed down the enemy football team, but they never pushed beyond his 50 yard line and scored a touch down. Conservatism" in America has basically been a pathetic rear guard action, defined as basically whatever "Liberalism" was a generation or two ago.

One of America's problems is that it never had much of a real right wing to begin with. William Everdell observes in The End of Kings that virtually the entire right wing of the British political spectrum missing at the time of the American Revolution. In addition, Thomas Jefferson observed correctly that secessionism was the most potent weapon Americans had against tyranny. Once that got crushed, all the anchor lines to a serious, permanent right wing got severed.

To give a better idea of America's drift, Milton Friedman, in a 1987 Forbes interview, observed that virtually every item on the 1928 Socialist Plank has become a reality in America today. Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith observed in The Age of Uncertainty, that most students become unsettled the first time they read the Communist Manifesto and find out how many items have become true in America today.

Some good reading about America's drift towards centralization includes Pat Buchanan's A Republic, Not An Empire. Also, Dr. Tim Woods Not Politically Correct History of America.

In a way, the devil is in the details. As reviews the various historic episodes that have steadily expanded government, one sees a tale of a cancer steadily growing. One also sees a story of mental fracturing and massive self-deception. The recklessness and irresponsibility of one generation sets a bad precedent and gets taken for granted by the next generation, which then adds its own recklessness and irresponsibility.

In fact, one can make the analogy of the drug addict whose dependency increases to the point that he needs more "fix" to get by. Beyond a certain point, government growth and intervention becomes like a self-reinforcing drug addiciton. The following are some examples.

The people behind government growth justify it intellectually in the media and in schools. They begin to crowd out libertarian ideas. Once the libertarian voice gets drowned out beyond a certain point, the majority of people start to prefer authoritarian, big-government solutions because they have been conditioned to expect this. They readily accept statist solutions because they do not know any better.

Government growth creates a huge constituency of well-paid pork policians, bureaucrats, civilian contractors, corporate subsidy-recipients, and welfare dependents who now have a strong financial interest to perpetrate big government to maintain their livelihood. To them, when you cut government, you murder Santa Claus.

The groups that use the coercive power of government to gain privilege at the expense of fellow citizens become ever greedy for more privilege, power, and money. The weakness of the citizenry in yielding to the growth of government only becomes like blood in the water to these sharks

"Government" has its own "pornography" somewhat analogous to people who get addicted to erotic pornography as opposed to investing their time in developing real relationships. The "shamanism" and "machismo" of a chief executive starts to provide an emotional "turn on" for citizens. Monuments that glorify state accomplishments acquire magical significance. Scenes of massed troops and advanced military hardware can provide power orgasms typically associated with "militarism." Politicians can increasingly justify wars and other behavior that tends to grow government in terms of rhetorical abstractions that play to subconscious, magical thinking rather than clear, logical analysis. In addition, their rhetoric hides the special privileges accruing to a ruling gangster elite.

Also, as "statism" continually grew in America in the 20th century, there are dark and repeated undertones of "controlled opposition." Among other things, the increasingly authoritarian U.S. Government repeatedly proves itself incompetent at promoting decentralization through its own authoritarian, monopolotistic, bureaucratic methods. As an example, anti-Trust initiatives failed to block the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Banking System. It often had unintended consequences in terms of breaking up the worst trusts. In the 1930's the New Deal government "defends" workers by giving unions de facto authorization to engage in violence, and exemption from anti-trust legislation. In the 1960's and 1970's, FBI Cointelpro programs infiltrate rightist groups, and somehow "defend" white interests by getting agents provocateurs to discredit pro-white organizations as uncouth, inarticulate, violent slobs.

An important point I revisit below is that Aaron Russo's film "Freedom to Fascism" understates the seriousness of our situation when he states that America is headed towards fascism. Arguably, America has already been in a state of permanent fascism ever since FDR's New Deal. One can even argue that permanent fascism extends back to the creation of the Federal Reserve and income tax in 1913. However, the Federal government was still relatively small at the time of Woodrow Wilson although the fascist infrastructure had been put in place.

many members of FDR's administration openly admired Benito Mussolini in the early 1930's, as did leading Zionists such as Vladimir Jacobtinsky. As one indicator of the pro-Mussolini sentiment, U.S. Marine Corp General Smedley Butler got court martialed as a consequence of his criticism of Mussolini delivered before a social club gathering. He condemned Mussolini for arrogantly failing to stop his motorcade after it hit a child by stating that such matters were unworthy a head of state.

It would be more accurate to retitle Russo's film "From Fascism to Police State Terror."

Hence, as we follow the continual growth of American "statism" after 1861, we need to "keep our eye on the ball." We need to be watching for the continuing rise of "fascist indicators," such as how the Office of the President increasingly takes on overtones of the shamen, dictator, social meddler, warmongorer, or a papparazi cult of personality. We need to observe how Congress becomes increasingly divorced from real needs of constitutents and instead a rubber stamp of covert special interests. We need to see how checks and balances increasingly fail to prevent the rise of a legislating Supreme Court and an imperial President who can circumvent Congress in waging foreign wars. We need to see how Jacobin rhetoric increasingly squeezes out substantive talk about real issues. We need to see how government increasingly lies while habitually over promising and under delivering. We need to see the increasing hypocrisy between its brutal and monopolistic use of force and the fairness it demeans from others, such as through its highly selective application of affirmative action and "hate crime" laws. Lastly, we need to observe how various Ivy League academics and other court apologists and political prostitutes increasingly bend themselves into intellectual pretzels to defend the rise of the spendthrift, blank check pro-Zionist, neo-Jacobin, welfare-warfare global super state that wages perpetual war for perpetual peace.

To summarize, government increasing starts to work against the taxpayer to further its own interests rather than for the taxpayer. Government leaders increasingly resort to deceptions and coercive power to stay in power rather than providing genuinely productive governmental services to the citizenry.

I may disagree with Aaron Russo on how far advanced the statist disease has become, but no doubt we are solidly in agreement that it is not a pretty picture.

I will outline some major trends towards ever more centralization:

The War for Southern Independence: 1861-1865 U.S. Government waged aggressive war against a newly declared soverign, independent country with similar political institutions. Federal imperialists violently annexed the Confederate States of America after obliterating its government and destroying half its wealth.

Abraham Lincoln said that we must make the Constitution the new "political religion of the land." This was strange, considering that as a lawyer of all people he no doubt understand that the Contitution is fundamentally a social contract and not a moralistic religion. We have a clear separation between church and state. Furthermore, given the way he repeatedly ran roughshod over it, he was the last person in America who could urge fellow Americans to treat it like a religion. Regardless, Lincoln was good at telling people what they wanted to hear. Americans increasingly began to treat the Constitution like a religion. The U.S. Government as its high priesthood. Creating a sense of divine awe about government is very fascistic in nature.

1865-1876: Federal troops occupied Southern states. For many years in many states, Southern whites are not allowed to vote. Their legislatures are run by illiterate former slaves. They permit all-negro military units to go around and rape white women while supporting utterly corrupt carpetbagger regimes at the point of a bayonet. For example, South Carolina's reconstruction government was one of the most corrupt in American history (see Michael Collins Piper article about the Jewish governor Franlin J. Moses)

The fourteenth Amendment: more Federal intervention.

During Reconstruction era, whites could not vote in many states run by all black legislators.

1876 swing back: was Jim Crow, which prevented whites from being overwhelmed by blacks. Whites granted measure of local autonomy in return for aggreement to remain absorbed in the Federal Collective. This understanding is later violated in the 1950's and 1960's when Federal imperialists force racial integration at the point of a bayonet, such as Airborne troops herding white women into racially mixed schools.

In the late 1800's, the politics of envy and underlying class, ethnic, and regional warfare only grow in America. The whole Davy Crockett "Sockdolager" philosophy goes out the window, and many citizens could care less if they now the coercive power of governmetn to raid the pockets of other citizens. In other words, soft "civil war."

Feeling extreme resentment at being crushed by the North, Southern politics start to drift towards bringing home pork from northerners. Meanwhile in the north, we see the rise of big political machines in the cities, where citizens use the political system to hand out jobs and settle ethnic grudges. Some obvious examples are big Irish catholic political machines with some underlying eething animosity towards Anglos as a consequence of English oppression of Ireland and the centuries old Protestant-Catholic rivalry.

Pork-raider government adds fuel to the fire of big government growth, becaues now citizens start demanding that their politicans find ways to use government to come up with subsidy and wealth transfer programs.

William McKinley and the Spanish American war. This was America's first major war outside its borders since the invasion of Canada during the War of 1812. The explosion that sank the Battleship Maine in Havana Harbor was later determined by a naval board of inquiry to have likely been the result of an internal accident. Regardless, the conquest of Cuba as part of a Jacobin war of liberation also included a brutal occupation of the Philipines. For years, American soldiers killed hundreds of thousands of Filipinos until the islands were pacified.

The Spanish-American War was an important "test war." Having suckered Northern young men in a war of aggression against the South, now America's ruling elite needed to see how many of them would be willing to fight an imperial war overseas to annex and hold an alien, Spanish-speaking race. The elite also needed to how many members of a new generation of Southern young men would be pollyannish enough to fight alongside Northern men in their imperial war despite the horrible way they had mistreated the South.

Unfortunately the answer to both questions was that there were too many volunteers for a "Splendid Little War" and not enough mass resistance. Not in a new mass media era where newspaper barron William Randolph Hearst could brag to artist Frederick Remington: "You provide the pictures, and I will provide the war." Now the elite knew that all they needed was a flimsy neo-Jacobin ideological pretext, combined with a privately owned central bank to provide the rapid expansion of credit necessary to wage a major war, and they were ready to send American armies to fight anywhere in the world -- to include Europe.

The Filipino occupation was also ominonous for another reason. This episode created a civil service cadre that later manned the central planning bureacracy for World War I industries. Later on, the World War I Fed generation would in turn provide experienced cadre for New Deal central planning involving the entire U.S. economy.

As an introduction to WWI central planning-related corruption, read War Is A Racket by Marine Corps General Smedley Butler.

Counterswing: The American Anti-Imperialist League was formed in 1898 to assert classical liberal principles and oppose annexation. It was led by such notables as Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, and Grover Cleveland. It failed to prevent the Philipines and Puerto Rico from becoming U.S. territorities, and later failed to keep the U.S. out of World War I.

Teddy Roosevelt and invasion of Panama. Great White Fleet. No classical liberal, in his writings he hurled invective at Thomas Jefferson and excoriated rationalist thinker Tom Paine as a "dirty little atheist."

Teddy Roosevelt was the first showman to consciously, deliberately, and energetically define the U.S. Presidency as a cult of personality. With his "Bully Pulpit" public sermonizing style, he even gave it magical, shamanistic overtones. He made it a point to have press coverage of daily lifestyle events. "Uncle Ted" even publicly intervened in an American football atheletic dispute. "Cult of personality" is typically considered a "fascist" indicator.

After Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt was America's second major "Manchurian Candidate" president.

Also, we see the comic book legend driving the man. My opinion why George Custer was so reckless at Little Big Horn, he was trying to cultivate his comic book image as valient Indian fighter. He left behind his two gattling guns. He could have waited. Instead he pledged headlong into the entire Sioux and Cheyenne. There was no military necessity for him to attack headlong into the combined forces of the entire encamped Sioux and Cheyenne nation.

Even more sinister than the cult of personality, he was major culprit in American politics in terms of highjacking American icons in service anti-classical liberal, pro-liberal fascist.

Pioneers typically took law into own hyands as vigilantes and small groups. They did not put up with much crap. Lynch early Mormons and .

Interesting legend is the ambitious person creates the comic book pioneer legend about themselves, and the legend recreates them.

Born int hte log cabin goes back to Andrew Jackson. A contemporary of Jackson was Davy Crocket who toured Eastern Cities to embellish legend. Abraham Lincoln "born in a log cabin" and spoke with a high-pitched Kentucky accent.

Pioneer legend resonates around the world. A lot of ideologies and political movements find the idea of grass roots self-sufficiency very attractive. Soviet Union, the Soviets were soviets were self-sufficient peasant communities. Arab Bathaist talks about lower level self-sufficiency..

The big problem around the world is ideologists talk about these ideals, but the politcal reality always seems to degenerate back to some form of tyranny or brutal oligartchy. What makes the American experience so attractive, is that the pioneers not only talked the talk, but they walked the walk --and they prospered.

There is nothing wrong per se about someone wanting to live up to a legend. Crockett created a legend about himself, then later when his political career fell apart, headed to Texas to find a brave new future. I think at root Crockett was an honest, decent, well-intentioned man. I am not sneering at him. I think we need heroes. We need people who try to live to higher standard. Crockett sacrificed himself for a worthy cause and deserve. He certainly did not promote the exact opposite.

The rub comes with people who put on the trappings, and consciouisly and systematically work against the very people they pretend to serve. Furthermore, once there is evidence they are doing damage, they persist and do extraordinary damage to American interests.

Roosevelt's cult of personality also had a dark side. After Lincoln, he made a new stride in acting as a "Manchurian candidate" President.

Ideologically, Roosevelt pushing hard in the exact opposite direction from the classical liberal, Jacksonian democracy ideology of the pioneers.

Other Presidents had played the "pioneer legend" card to be sure.

No government, thrift, conservative social values, self-sufficiency, courage.

You knocked up a girl, you married her. If someone got off on jury and the community was convinced that he was guilty as hell, not uncommon for them to go ahead and just lynch you. Example, Leo Frank lynched in ____.

However, with Roosevelt he cultivated the pioneer and cowboy legends in a way that was qualitatively different, and vastly more sinister, than his predecessors.

The pioneers had "folk consciousness." Took care of each other. Self-sufficient. They both rugged individualists and self-sufficient communities. Those communities were attractive to people of many different ideological persuasions: anarchists, socialists, and extreme right wingers.

Roosevelt highjacked the cowboy and pioneer legend.

Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan were absolute disgraces. Most real cowboys back in Texas and California would probably want to shove them headfirst into a pile of horse manure, and that just getting started before.

Later on, Trilateral commission like to get a Southerner. Ronald Reagan -cowboy.

Classic highjackers, Richard Nixon, the anti-communist "gut figher" populist who went after Alger Hiss, who then opens up China. Or Lyndon Johnson who affected a plain Texas who did more damage to the South and white genetic interests than other President.

He became America's answer to Reichchancellor Otto Von Bismarck, who, incidentally, also served as an important role model for Adolf Hitler. Henceforward, Presidents who tried to act more "normal" by 19th century standards such as Warren Harding would be lambasted in media as "boring."

Progressivism: bribe the work force. Social Security... fascistic in nature.

Ideologically, FDR's racial nationalism really a slight of hand towards jingoism. At what point does pan-white racial nationalism become so diffuse that it becomes almost meaningless, and turn the U.S. Government into their father figure. Americans stripped of regional loyalty. FDR started to promote a "cartoony" jinogistic interpretation of patriotism.


T.R. was enigmatic in his racial views. On one level, T.R. was explictly pro-white and racially conscious. However, his pro-white racial nationalism was on a very abstract, pan-white level. You can see this in a tract popularly circulated among rightists in America today titled Roosevelt on Reds, Riots, and ___. He is also explicitly lauds the white race in his series The Winning of hte West.

Paradoxically, when it came to preserving the local flavorings of distinct European nationalisms in America, T.R.was openly hostile towards "hyphenated Americans.". I remember seeing a T.R. quote at an exhibit in the Smithsonian in Washington in which he stated with words to the effect that running Americans through the military was a good thing because it helped to level out "hyphenated" Americans.

Today we see the dark side back end of that policy, where white Americans are so "homogenized" that they lack the specific racial and ethnic identity, deep-seated motivation, and cohesion necessary to effectively stand up to the Jewish Lobby or halt massive illegal immigration from Mexico. With its below ZPG birth rate, white America is literally dying of a sociobiological analog of AIDs, where it simply lacks the immune defenses to guard against dynamic intruders.

Whether or not an Irish-American, Swedish-American, German-American, Italian-American, Celtic American, Nordic American or some other European American with an ancestral history going back tens of thousands of years wanted to give up an indigeneous identity was frankly none of T.R.'s intrusive business. His efforts to use the Federal government -- and in particular the military -- as a tool to suppress indigeneous white identities was in principle very Jacobin and fascistic. It was also very hypocritical, because T.R. certainly was not campaigning against Jewish Americans, who were at that time seizing control of America's central bank and its important media as a highly focused and cohesive ethnic group. In actuality, it required focused white ethnic groups, such as the very racially and ethnically homogeneous Puritan-descended New Englanders who started the American Revolution, to stand up to the Jews. When whites lack racial and ethnic pride, it is easy for Jews to buy off them off. With their claws on centrals, Jews definitely had plenty of money to selectively corrupt people. Despite all this, T.R.used the Presidency to aggrandize imperial power while undermining specific indigenous white identities.

The fact that Teddy Roosevelt denounced Thomas Jefferson and rationalist thinker Tom Paine in his writings is more evidence to me that he was at root an authoritarian, white supremacist, top down nationalist. One can intelligently argue the case that in terms of basic, abstract, underlying statist principles, Teddy Roosevelt had much more in common with Otto Von Bismarck and Adolf Hitler than Thomas Jefferson. Historicans remember him better today than Hitler because he did not publicly cross the Zionists or get America into a war where it got its rear end kicked.

T.R. was such a jingoist he is almost pathetic, just like George Custer was an idiot, a symptom of the deteriorating quality of America's leadership..


The Federal Reserve Act: Creation of central

Income tax

Entry into World War I

America's entry into World War I was a horror story for civil liberties. In many public libraries, books that seemed favorable to Germany were lifted off shelves and burned. One dissident was arrested and thrown in jail for reading the Declaration of Independence in a public place. It even got childish: Saurkraut was renamed "Liberty Cabbage."

Aron Russo, who has produced "Freedom to Fascim" is not quite correct. America has already had fascism many times over. I think it would be more accurate to title the documentary "from fascism to police state terror."

America had fascism under King Lincoln. It also had it in spades under Woodrow Wilson. However, after each of these regimes, there was a significant retreat back towards normalcy after the war was over, even if mostly on a rhetorical level..

Arguably, de facto fascism became a permanent fixture in America during Roosevelt's New Deal. The Old Right was snuffed out by decree not long after Huey Long was assasssinated, FDR prevented Rev Charles Coughlin from distributing Social Justice Magazine in the mail, and FDR dragged many leading members fothe America First Committee before the Great Sedition Show Trial.

Dr. Robert Higgs of the Independence Institute has written many excellent books such as Against Leviathan about the growth in size and arrogance of the Federal government during this period. All of his lectures at mises.org are well worth listening to.

We should note that there were many Old Right contemporaries of FDR such as John T. Flynn, Garret Garret, H.L. Mencken, Alfred Nock, Ralph Townsend, Elizabeth Dilling and Lawrence Dennis who recognized at the time that fascism had come to America during peacetime with the New Deal, and was here to stay.

Many of the aformentioned individuals were subtle about it, and certainly not as explicit as say, Garret Garret in his famous work The Revolution Was. Dennis was cagey about it by titling one of his works The Coming American Fascism. While Elizabeth Dilling did not explicitly call the U.S. Government "fascist," but she did write about the "Roosevelt Red Network" which says pretty much the same thing. Reading between the lines, most of the key surviving intellectual leaders of America's Old Right were signaling that fascism was already here.

As another horror story for civil liberties, tens of thousands of German and Italian Americans, along with 140,000 Japanese Americans, were placed in concentration camps in America.

On a philosophical level, once the public came to accept the mythology that government spending and war ended the Great Depression, the principles of fascism were embedded in their hearts and brains.

I do not pretend that the causes of the Great Depression are always simple. But if we are going to oversimplify, I like Dr. Murray Rothbard's Austrian economic approach in his work The Great Depression best of all. He felt that a key factor was the rapid expansion of money and credit by the Federal Reserve beginning with World War I and continuing through the 1920's, followed by a credit implosion. During the Depression, FDR's New Deal interventions artificially raised prices and prevented the economy from clearing out bad debt and price distortions. He also antagonized entrepreneurs by raising taxes. His interventionism ultimately prolonged and deepened the Depression. The free market was not allowed to effectively hold fire sales and readjust economic distortion, as it has done in only two years during a great recession during the Martin Van Buren administration when he stood back and let the free market operate. The Depression lasted through World War II, when wages were finally brought down to free market clearance levels by the end World War II when government wage and price controls prevented wages from rising, while government inflation dropped the real value of wages and inflation. Meanwhile, conscripting millions of Americans and having 400,000 of them get killed is a lousy way to correct economic imbalances.

Also, war generally does not create wealth. Studies show that R&D generally becomes cannabalized during war, and what R&D that exists is far less efficient. In Harry Hazlett's Economics In One Lesson, he points out in "The Fallacy of the Broken Window" that while war may benefit a few profiteers, its destructriveness inflicts opportunity costs and a loss of resources that could have been engaged in advancing production and wealth rather than makingup for losses.

War, as James Madison pointed out, generally favors bigger, more authoritarian government and suppression of civil liberties.

Therefore, to the extent that Americans had became conditioned to accept war and big govenrment spending, massive subsidy of indusry, and intervention as a cure for solving their economic ills, they have indeed become de facto fascists. They might vote in elections and keep a picture of Jefferson on the desk, but in underlying princple, they embrace fascism.

This was extremely dangerous


Woman's suffrage

Prohibition: Government decides it has the right to decide what you drink in the privacy of your own home.

Attempted entry into League of Nations

New Deal

FDR confiscates private ownership of gold

FDR denies mail privileges to Reverend Charles Coughlin
Great Show Trial of 1944.

FDR suicide. According to the Barnes Review, there is now strong evidence that FDR committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. He was probably depressed from realizing what a fool he had been to hand Eastern Europe over to Stalin. Or perhaps it was sinking in on him how his policy of unconditional surrender was costing the lives of many tens of millions of people (about 60 million people died in World War II). Aw shucks, the perils of "top down" leftist global management compared good old fashioned classical liberal noninterventionism.

Creation of United Nations
(Reducing four terms)

Bretton Woods

Rise of Keynesianism.

Creation of Israel

Integration of Armed Forces

Korean War: Significant growth in Presidential power. Undeclared war.

John F. Kennedy "jawboning" and "resource gap"

The New Industrial State by John Kenneth Galbraith

Civil Rights Act

Immigration Act

Great Society Program. The "War on Poverty" continues the fascist misonception that government spending and war are good things to end poverty.

Vietnam War. Another major undeclared war.

Assault on the Liberty Cover Up

London Gold Pool Cover up

Space program: Direct governemnt funding of science and technology, incredibly inefficient compared to ______; there is now even a question if some mission results were faked.

Nixon decouples from gold. Prior gold pool episode.

Hate crime legislation

The dawn of police state terror in America

Waco, Ruby Ridge

Derivatives up to 20 times American GDP
Congress votes another debt ceiling increase

Invasion of Iraq on phony pretexts of WMD for Israel. Probably the first war of completely naked foreign aggression in American history.

George Bush steals two elections.

War on Terror as a permanent War, once again, revisits Keynesian ideology that

Patriot Act

 

 

 

 

T
The biggest beneficiary of this suppression is the Jewish lobby that dragged America into the Iraqi fiasco, as documented in Michael Collins Piper's The High Priests of War and the recent Harvard Study. Americans are conditioned by their controlled national media to believe that any criticism of Jews, Israel, or Zionism is a form of "anti-Semitism." This in turn is a form of "racism." Therefore, Americans must never criticize any form of Jewish monopolization of national media. America must always give Israel all the money that it demands. Americans must always endlessly send their sons and daughters overseas to fight for Israel's interests. Americans can never point out that the Jewish right of return to Israel is based on bloodlines, which is very racist, and that Israel runs an anti-Palestinian apartheid state far more vicious and oppressive than anything ever seen in the old South Africa. To in any way protest all of this is of course "anti-Semitism," which of course is "racism," which of course is a great, effable moral evil, from the environmental top down ideological viewpoint.

A walk down left wing memory lane...

"Leftism" has a long history in America. According to William Everdell's The
In regard to leftist trends, shooting British soldiers during both the War of Independence and the War of 1812 did not exactly help the cause of White racial unity, particularly when it became part of a larger pattern that involved shooting white Southerners and Germans in the other big wars that came later. The fact that Protestant Anglo-Saxon America put itself at the financial mercy of Catholic France (which is co-equally Celtic, Alpine, and Mediterranean as well as "Nordic") during the American Revolution did not exactly clarify deep right wing roots in ancient English cultural, racial, ethnic, legal, and historical traditions.



I think that a good first step in our historical analysis involves simply documenting and taking note of all the major milestones in the growth of both "leftism" and "big government."

Another good step might be to find out what what the promises and expectations were at the time when each of these steps were taken. Have they in fact been fulfilled and betrayed?

Please recollect that George Washington once stated that the fundamental essence of government is force. Stated differently, government intervention is basically a form of "U.S. cavalry to the rescue."

For all the money spent, do you think many people are being "rescued" compared to what might have been accomplished if 75% of the money the government receives in taxes were instead retained by the private sector to help fund projects and jobs on a private level?

Similarly with the growth of leftism, have we really increased our capacity to "share" and achieve more "social justice" over the last one hundred years? Has government "sharing" done a better job than if the same resources had been allocated through private charities?

I might add that the "top down" viewpoint tends to look at everything in aggregates, as opposed to the "bottom up" viewpoint that I will get to later that looks at things on an individualized level. What people in our society benefit by shifting resource allocation to a centralized level where we lose the local American community focus?

As a third step, we might try to characterize the emerging symptoms of societies as they go deeper into the environmental top down perspective. This will help us develop a smell test to then look at other societies throughout history with similar characteristics to help us make better historical analogies and predict where we might be headed.

I would suggest the following symptoms that I see repeatedly mentioned in social science literature and political commentary:

a) Shamanism Other synonyms might be "guruism" (I made this up), "elitism," and "staff experts." This is the notion that people who affect all the trappings of serious intellectualism, such as accumulating large libraries, earning degrees from presitigious institutions, punching all the right career buttons, and who accumulate other "indicators" of brilliance, automatically have some very special, very arcane and esoteric sources of knowledge and special understanding that enable them to make decisions that are beyond question. The Shaman's credentials are so weighty that his views must be viewed with favor and his decisions must be obeyed even if they defy common sense and ordinary logical analysis.

There is also an emotional element involved here as well. The shaman must appear very mature and adult in his behavior. In the authoritarian state, the rest of us masses are the kiddies who require the mature leadership and erudite instruction of the Shamans so that we do not get out of hand.

Dr. Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Fed, was a perfect example of a shamanistic actor. If you read the archives of Congressman Ron Paul at mises.org, you will understand the frustration of trying to compare Greenspan's arcane, cryptic, and often self-contradictory Fed revelations with common sense, facts, and logic. Nevertheless, Dr. Greenspan remained very calm, reassuring, mature, and professorial in his behavior, even when he spoke total gibberish.

Incidentally, having earned a degree from a prestigious institution myself, I do not mean to cut my own throat. There are people with prestigious credentials who are in fact very capable and competent people. However, the credentials in and of themselves are only indicators. They prove nothing, particularly in regard to specific issues. Proof only comes from logical analysis applied to facts.

b) Statism This involves idolization of all the trappings and structures that go with the state apparatus, to include government buildings, layers of bureaucracy, government monuments, state symbols, command and control networks, and layers of regulations. The statist typically feels that since the state is such a good thing, that expanding the state gives us that much more of a good thing and an even bigger and more "comfy" security blanket.

With "statism," people tend to emotionally embrace the state as an end in itself, rather than keep a wary distance from a potential cancer. They are more concerned about structure and form than functionality and substance. They become oriented more towards duty-based morality systems to fit an authoritarian environment rather than contractual or utilitarian ethics used by equals. Last, but not least, all of the various things that are indirectly associated with "the state" acquire considerable prestige. In fact, they even acquire some super magical, quasi-religious, iconic characteristics of their own.

Let us examine some lessors saints that have been showered with pixie dust by the Holy Order of the U.S. Government. A chief holy relic is the U.S. Constitution which all members of the Armed Forces are sworn to protect and defend.

The U.S. Constitution is nothing more than a contract. Conceptually it is no different than a negotiated real estate leasing contract with a landlord, only it is much bigger in scope and deals with governance rather than realty issues. Contrary to popular impressions, it does not "give" citizens any rights. Rather, it describes what government cannot take away from them.

Many Founding Fathers were emphatic that Americans should remain unawed by this document. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he thought it woud be a good idea if Americans reinvented their Constitution each generation. In fact, there was a substantial group of Americans called anti-Federalists who thought the Constitution was a bad step towards centrism compared to the Articles of Confederation. They included Patrick Henry who boycotted the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia because "he smelled a rat." We can thank the anti-Federalists for demanding the Bill of Rights, otherwise I might not be able to write this article on the Internet today. I get into all of this into more detail, as well as some even more heretical material, in the libertarian racial nationalist section of this discussion. I explain the elements that make up viable "popular soverignty," and why any Constitution gets increasingly shaky as these elements slip out of your fingers.

The U.S. Constitution becomes a cop out when Americans view it as an icon that will magically run the country on auto-pilot while its citizens fall asleep monitoring underlying constitutional issues. As an example, we see greedy businessmen take the attitude that if they flood the U.S. with Mexicans to use as cheap labor, that all it takes is a short civics class on the Constitution and in order to make them just as "American" as folks who trace their ancestry back to the Mayflower. No doubt many Americans are also shocked at the Israel-first neo-conservatives such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz described in Mike Piper's High Priests of War who have also failed to show the salubrious effects of being sprinkled with U.S. Constitution pixie dust.

For all intents and purposes, fascism is simply a more explicit and aggressive form of statism in which government seeks to cartelize and manage major portions of private industry without getting rid of private industry altogether. Once we get rid of private industry and turn everything over to the state, we get communism. Facism can be either "left wing" or "right wing" depending on how it handles racial, class warfare, and private industry-related issues.

c) Neo-Jacobinism This is the concept that the state has an inherent moral authority to aggressively use its coercive power to enforce leftist ideology both at home and abroad. Some good examples might include when President Dwight Eisenhower sent in the 82nd Airborne to enforce racial integration in Alabama in the 1950's, when Napoleon conquored Austrian and German states in the early 1800's in the name of "liberty, fraternity, and equality," or when George Bush invaded Iraq in the name of "democracy."

A big problem with Jacobinism is that leftist ideology tends to be very maleable and open-ended to justify just about anything, since it has no real racial, ethnic, cultural, or heritage anchors. As an example, demogogues can exploit the term "democracy" alone to justify endless wars. The reason is that there is no such thing as a perfect democracy in any society. Therefore, one can always find some imperfection in the democracy of another country as a basis for aggression. Similarly, demogogues can use vague leftist terms such as "enemy of the people," "counterrevolutionary," or "racists" to wage perpetual war on domestic dissidents. (In regard to the term "racist," I argue in the environmental vs. genetics section that deep down inside everyone is instinctively a racist, therefore, anyone can become a target of the leftist state for wanting to defend some aspect of their race, ethnicity, culture, religion, heritage, or whatever).

d) Conspicuous Consumption This is the concept that the consumption of massive resources or the severe exercise of state power in and of itself proves the inherent legitimacy of the government's actions. Often this is accompanied by a very emotional feeling that the horrible things that the state does must have been the right thing or else God or destiny would not have allowed it to happen.

I have read of certain people in today's France who still feel that the Jacobin Terror of the French Revolution somehow "saved" France, as if mass killings of educated and refined people (to include many members of the middle class) and setting up France for the Napoleonic bloodbaths helped the country. Similarly, H.L. Mencken has correctly observed that Lincoln got his logic wires crossed in his Gettysberg address, when he spoke of "hallowed ground" to justify the terrible sacrifice of lives for his cause.

Conspicuous consumption is in some ways rational, and in other ways completely irrational. Let us start with the irrational.

In One Up On Wall Street, ace fund manager Peter Lynch points out that the most successful corporate CEO's typically run lean and mean companies. They have minimal frills and overhead and stay close to their markets and their production room floor. Huberth and Peters make the same point in In Search of Excellence. Similarly, in The Art of War, the famous Chinese strategist Sun Tzu points out that the the really skillful statesmen can anticipate the strategy of their adversaries, and accomplish their objectives without resorting to war. The least skillfill statesmen and generals blunder into head-on situations where lots of people get killed.

In contrast to all of this, we see CEO's of major corporations in America pile it on with more hefty salaries, severance packages, and perks such as stretch limousines and executive jets. Similarly, a Mises Institute lecturer has commented how liberal historians usually rate as the greatest President of America the ones who got American embroiled in the bloodiest, most expensive wars, and they simultaneously ignore the ones who avoided wars and cut government spending. Hence, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR were the greatest, while relatively frugal noninterventionist Presidents such as Martin Van Buren and Thomas Jefferson are nonentities.

However, while it is extremely inefficient in terms of a productive use of resources, one can argue that conspicuous consumption can be very effective in terms of sending certain social signals. One of the most basic signals is a fear message. It has "demonstration" characteristics similar to a terroristic act where one blows up innocent civilians and government property to show potency in retaliating against political enemies, only here one simply wastes resources to make the demonstration without doing anything illegal.

As a primitive example, in ancient Polynesia, the particular chieftain who could order a thousand human sacrifices along with two thousand bananas and coconuts on his heiau (temple) was probably more likely to strictly enforce the kapus and send an agent called a Mu to choke violators in their sleep than a smaller chieftain who could order only ten human sacrifices with fewer coconuts and bananas at a whack. Therefore, people who could read and react to the conspicuous consumption signals involving religious sacrifice might tighten up their act to enhance their chances of survival.

A CEO who can score the big severance package and the executive jet may be in a better position to engate in legal terrorism against his adversaries that someone of more modest means and tastes. Perhaps in contemporary America their bark is worse than their real bite, but still on a very primitive, subconscious level, we feel their "heavy mana," as they used to say in Old Hawaii.

Similarly, a President who is powerful enough to waste thousands of American lives in a needless foreign intervention and hundreds of billions of dollars might also be powerful enough to send FBI agents, IRS auditors, and other dark forces after you to harass you and make your life miserable if you look cross-eyed at him.

In reality, the bark of an aggressive President may be much bigger than his effective bite for U.S. citizens on U.S. territory, or at least for the time being (all bets are off overseas, in view of the use of depleted uranium, torture, and other nasty portents), but still on a subconscious level we sense the bullying and intimidation factor against our First Amendment rights.

e) Whig Theory of History This is the idea that every time something goes wrong in American history, Americans will take note of it and then analyze it. We then move on and profit byall of our hard-earned experience. Therefore, the America that we see today can only be the net repository of a rich accumulation of "learning experiences" and hence must be a much better society than it was fifty years ago, and that society must in turn be better than the one that came fifty years earlier, and so on.

Later I provide another viewpoint on the Whig Theory with my extracts from Sam Dickson's brilliant article "Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln." When you read his comments, as well as my cyclical, genetic-related viewpoints on history, you may better appreciate the Whig Theory for the scam that really it is.

Disturbing anomalies

It would require a whole library of ebooks to address all of these issues in adequate depth --which is incidentally why I hope to keep adding more ebooks over time. However, I would like to provide some anomalous examples.

In regard to the contention that Federal invasion of the South was required to end slavery, Dr. Jeffry Hummelt, in Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men observes that the living standards of the average Southern Negro were lower forty years after the Civil War was over than at the time the war began. The war destroyed half the South's wealth, and by the turn of the century the South had still not fully recovered. Furthermore, the U.S. was the only industrialized country of its era that was incapable of ending slavery peacefully.

Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo's observes in The Real Lincoln that Abraham Lincoln's first priority involved enforcing high tarrifs legislated just prior to Southern secession. Higher tariffs paid off his political backers. In an effort to prevent secession, he offered the South the original Thirteenth Amendment proposal, which he supported. This guaranteed slavery in the South. Lincoln was clear that the first priority of his threat of armed invasion was to collect the new tariff.

So why do the marble inscriptions at the Lincoln Memorial, or for that matter on plaques at hundreds of namesake high schools around the country, fail to explicitly honor "The Great Tariff Collector?" Even Karl Marx admitted at the time that it was first and foremost a tariff war and not a war to end slavery. Why are our historians less honest than the father of modern communism?

In regard to the contention tht the Federal Reserve Banking System serves a useful purpose, let us observe that by 1913, the year of its creation, the U.S. dollar had gained 50% in value over the prior 100 years. During this period, the dollar was linked to gold most of the time. The Fed was ostensibly created to help stabilize the currency and prevent severe business recessions. Instead, the dollar has lost well over 95% of its value, we have been hit with both the Great Depression and the 1970's stagflationary recession. Both of these events dwarfed anything known in the 19th century. We are probably en route to an inflationary blow out under "helicopter money" Ben Bernanke. The Fed has never been fully audited, is privately owned, and can create money independently of Congress. The ability to inflate the currency is an indirect form of taxation.

If the U.S. Government exists to serve our interests, why is it so apathetic regarding these issues? Congressman Ron Paul keeps raising them over and over again. There are a number of excellent books such as The Creature from Jekyll Island by Edwin Griffin or The Federal Reserve Conspiracy by Eustace Mullins that provide shocking details. Why is not anyone taking effective action?

In regard to describing American foreign policy in the 20th century, "enigmatic" is too polite a term. As an example, Woodrow Wilson ran on a peace plank in 1916, bragging that he kept America out of World War I. Immediately after he got elected, he did a complete flip-flop, and got America involved in a "War to End All War" and "A War to Make the World Safe for Democracy." America's intervention prolonged the war in Europe for nearly two years and cost millions more lives and drove many countries to total exhaustion. Wilson flip-flopped on his peace objectives and agreed to the onerous peace terms of the Versailles Treaty. Then, contrary to his alleged mission to promote democracy, he promoted a "hand's off" policy towards the Bolsheviks during the ensuing Russian civil war. All of this fueled the growth of bolshevism, which in turn encouraged the rise of fascism and Nazism and ultimately the onslaught of World War II.

It is bad enough that America would scrap its 19th century policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. Why would America convert a European War into a World War in a way that sets the stage for our involvement in a second World War?

On an ideological level, America has also undergone some interesting pretzel twists in the 20th century. Columnist Joseph Sobran has noted that today so called "modern" liberals and "modern" conservatives are both nearly the opposite of what "classical liberals" and "classical conservatives" once were in the 19th century. So, for example, both classical liberals and classical conservatives in America once believed in the early 1800's that white racial survival was non-negotiable, the American republic must be kept highly restrained under the Constitution, that America had no business using its military to impose "democracy" overseas, and that government had no business managing the economy. Today, both modern liberals and modern conservatives denounce racially conscious whites as "racists" while retaining blind allegiance to the exclusively Jewish state of Israel, believe that the Constitution is an anachronistic document, encourage more government spending to bail out economic problems, and laud American military intervention to impose "democracy" overseas.

One political pundit observed that "conservatism" in America today usually means "yesterday's liberalism." As an example, in the 1960's, liberals demanded that Americans not discriminate against Blacks as individuals, whereas the Ku Klux Klan favored racial segregation. Today Klan organizations claim they do not want to discriminate against blacks as individuals, whereas liberals often promote interracial marriage and wide open borders. We might ask why do we see this consistently relentless drive towards leftism and internationalism in American history?

We may ask why what we call "history" has in fact become a form of religion? Georgia Lawyer Sam Dickson points out in his work "Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln," that what is popularly accepted as the "Whig Theory of History" is in reality a secular mythology. Dickson explained: