I finished watching the Hunger Games series this weekend. I started watching the series back in 2012 when the first movie came out, and I enjoyed it enough that I was inspired to read the book series. I was so upset with Prim’s death</SPOILER ALERT> in the final book that I refused to watch the rest of the movie series. But I had a few hours to kill this weekend, so I decided to watch the movie series mostly to see if I had the same strong emotional reaction the televised version of the death of Prim </SPOILER ALERT> as I had had when I read the book. (I didn’t because the movie didn’t really have much character development of Prim, and plus I knew she was toast.) But I digress…
As I watched the movie I found myself in awe of the callousness of the residents of the Capitol. How could they be so indifferent to the fact that children were dying in front of their very eyes? Not a movie. Not a play. Not fiction. Real children as young as 12 years old. And to them it was entertainment. A mere game. Not a matter of life and death.
I silently assured myself that I was only watching a work of fiction play out onscreen. That there’s no way humans could be that indifferent to human suffering and the loss of life. But then I started thinking back on historical events that mirrored what was playing out on my tv. The Coliseum where Romans watched Christians fighting lions and being burned at the stake. And then there’s public executions as the adoring public cheered on the executioners.
Friends and family members who are grieved to the point of tears by the loss of a dozen lives in a US school shooting, can barely stifle their yawns when I speak to them about the 130 children who die EACH DAY from starvation, malnourishment or disease as a result of the American aided, Saudi led war in Yemen. In an effort to placate the Saudis after the US signed a nuclear deal with Iran, America is providing naval and air support to Saudi Arabia as they blockade this desperate nation depriving it of crucial medical supplies, household goods, and food. Since 2015 more than half a million people have died in Yemen as a result of the war there, and a worst cholera epidemic of the last 2 centuries is spreading across the country. Saudi Arabia with the assistance of the US military is committing war crimes in Yemen by intentionally targeting Yemeni civilian targets. But the major news networks can’t be bothered to even mention Yemen on an obscure daytime show.
We meander a bit more on this episode than most as we use the film/book series as more of a jumping off point for our rants about conscription and the near limitless thirst for government power. The Hunger Games film series consists of four science fiction dystopian adventure films based on The Hunger Games trilogy of novels, by the American author Suzanne Collins.
May the odds forever be in your favor.
The Hunger Games trilogy takes place in an unspecified future time, in the dystopian, post-apocalyptic nation of Panem, located in North America. The country consists of a wealthy Capitol city, located in the Rocky Mountains, surrounded by twelve (originally thirteen) poorer districts ruled by the Capitol.
The Capitol is lavishly rich and technologically advanced, but the districts are in varying states of poverty. The trilogy’s narrator and protagonist Katniss Everdeen, lives in District 12, the poorest region of Panem, located in Appalachia, where people regularly die of starvation.
Speaking of the Capitol, here is a new article by Czarina Denman also discussing the Hunger Games:
Well, you may have missed the deal on Monday, July 16, where Bluehost celebrated its 15th company birthday by giving you guys a $2.65/month web hosting deal. That’s really insane, and should not have been passed up. While still not as great of a deal now, it’s still a good deal. We’ll give you a shout-out, back link, and undying gratitude if you buy your hosting through our link below:
As punishment for a past rebellion against the Capitol (called the “Dark Days”), in which District 13 was supposedly destroyed, one boy and one girl from each of the twelve remaining districts, between the ages of 12 and 18, are selected by lottery to compete in an annual pageant called the Hunger Games. The Games are a televised event in which the participants, called “tributes”, are forced to fight to the death in a dangerous public arena. The winning tribute and his/her home district are then rewarded with food, supplies, and riches.
The purposes of the Hunger Games are to provide entertainment for the Capitol and to remind the districts of the Capitol’s power and lack of remorse, forgetfulness, and forgiveness for the failed rebellion of the current competitors’ ancestors. [-Wikipedia]
During the episode, we made mention of a lecture by Robert Higgs on the concept of conscription being the keystone for justifying any lesser action by the state, which paves the road for the justification of anything:
READINGS:
“War and Leviathan in Twentieth-Century America: Conscription as the Keystone”
“Crisis and Quasi-corporatist Policymaking: The Case in Historical Perspective”
“The Cold War Is Over, but U.S. Preparation for It Continues”
Higgs, Against Leviathan, chapters 24, 25, and 30 https://amzn.to/2sQ7yuH
Also, if you want to get into our roots, we discussed the Hunger Games briefly about two years ago back in our Read Rothbard Podcast days:
And also at Anchor.FM where you can even leave us messages of up to one-minute long that we can plug into the show, and respond to. Give it a try and we’ll see how it works together!
Check out our Patreon page to become a supporting listener and get access to this full recording and the other dozens of shows available: www.patreon.com/ReadRothbard
Libertarianism within a leviathan state functions not as a governing philosophy, but as a critique of excesses, i.e. the cases in which state power is used in an unusually pernicious manner. These efforts have had varying degrees of success, depending on how well libertarians can convince major party operatives and wealthy financiers of the wisdom of restraining the state on one issue or another. Unfortunately, mainstream libertarians seem to have a blind spot, if not an outright case of political autism, when it comes to corporate power. Free-market conservatives, reactionaries, and traditionalists also view corporations far too positively. Let us examine the history of corporations, construct a case against their existence and power, and offer solutions for reining them in. History of Corporations The word “corporation” comes from Latin corpus, meaning “body”. Originally, it was the gods of Uruk that fulfilled the function of imaginary entities that owned property and conducted commerce. Like modern corporations, Enki, Inanna, Lagash, Shurupak, and the other deities of ancient Mesopotamia outlived any human and were not troubled by inheritance disputes, but needed humans to conduct affairs on their behalf. The ancient Egyptians merged this concept with a physical embodiment to create the concept of Pharaoh.[1] By the time of Justinian I (r. 527–565), Byzantine-Roman law recognized several types of corporate entities, such as collegium, corpus, and universitas. The state itself was considered a sovereign corporation, the Populus Romanus. Smaller municipalities were also categorized as such, along with occupational guilds, political groups, and religious cults. The privileges of these early corporations were granted by the emperor in their charters, such as owning property, making contracts, engaging in commerce, and pursuing legal action.[2] Local governments and religious institutions were also incorporated in medieval Europe for the same reasons. Other forms of organization such as partnerships were offered by common law, which arose whenever people acted together with an intent to profit. The era of the modern corporation began in the 17th century with the chartered companies that led European colonial ventures in India, the Americas, and elsewhere. The Dutch East India Company (VOC, from Dutch Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie) was chartered by the Dutch government in 1602 and sold shares to investors, who traded them on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange. The charter granted limited liability to investors and allowed the company to use military force pursuant to its purposes, which it did by defeating Portuguese forces in the Maluku Islands.[3] The English government chartered corporations with a territorial monopoly. For example, Queen Elizabeth I chartered the East India Company of London in 1600 to monopolize trade with all countries east of the Cape of Good Hope.[4] Like the Dutch company, the English company would use force on the government’s behalf, becoming integrated with English and later British foreign policy. The English East India Company would become a symbol of both corporate success and exploitation.[5] Shareholders made almost 150 percent returns in 1711. Its first stock offering in 1713–1716 raised £418,000, and its second in 1717–1722 raised £1.6 million.[6] However, the apparent success of a similar entity, the South Sea Company, turned out to be illusory. Established in 1711, its monopoly rights to trade with Spanish South America were supposedly backed by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht. In reality, the Spanish remained hostile, only allowing one trade ship per year. Investors made the South Sea Company immensely wealthy despite the fact that it did no real business. It took on the burden of British public debt in 1717, further accelerating the share price. War with Spain in 1718 cost the company its prospects of trade profits.[7] The Bubble Act 1720, which prohibited the establishment of companies without a Royal Charter, contributed to Britain’s first speculative bubble.[8] South Sea Company shares eventually collapsed from £1000 in August 1720 to under £150 in October, causing many bankruptcies. Modern Developments As the 18th century ended, mercantilism was displaced by capitalism and agrarian economies became industrialized. Corporate forms also evolved to be less dependent on state direction and permission. Many business ventures during this time were unincorporated associations with up to thousands of members. Litigation was thus very difficult to coordinate, keeping the courts from being clogged with corporate lawsuits. The Bubble Act was eventually repealed in 1825. In 1844, Parliament passed the Joint Stock Companies Act, which allowed companies to incorporate by registration for only £10 without obtaining a royal charter.[9] Until 1855, company members were still fully financially responsible for their collective actions, but the Limited Liability Act changed this by only holding investors responsible up to the amount of their investment[10], thus allowing the remainder to be externalized to the public.[11] Insurance companies were excluded from limited liability at first, but the Companies Act 1862 changed this.[12] The 1897 House of Lords decision in Salomon v. Salomon & Co. confirmed the separate legal personhood of corporations by affirming that creditors could not sue the shareholders of an insolvent company for outstanding corporate debt. In 1892, Germany introduced the Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH), the forerunner of the modern limited-liability company (LLC). These were considered separate legal personalities with limited liability like corporations, but could be owned by a single person.[13] In the United States, corporations were usually formed by acts of Congress until the late 19th century. The captains of industry therefore made more use of the trust model than the corporate model, under which Rockefeller’s Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel Company became enormously successful.[14,15] State governments had more permissive corporate laws than the federal government in the 19th century, but most were designed to prevent corporations from gaining much wealth or power.[16] In the 1890s, New Jersey and Delaware adopted enabling corporate statutes.[17,18] Around this time, mergers and holding companies led to larger corporations, and governments responded with anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation. Forming corporations was also made easier in most jurisdictions, though some places had many state-owned corporations that effectively nationalized certain industries. In recent decades, many countries have moved toward privatizing state-owned corporations, though ownership was transferred to politically connected oligarchs in many cases.[19,20,21] Read the entire article at ZerothPosition.com References: Harari, Yuval Noah (2015). Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. HarperCollins Press. Ch. 4. Berman, Harold Joseph (1983). Law and Revolution (vol. 1): The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Cambridge University Press. p. 215–6. Prakash, Om (1998). European Commercial Enterprise in Pre-Colonial India. Cambridge University Press. Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. II (1908), p. 6. Keay, John (1991). The Honorable Company: A History of the English East India Company. MacMillan-New York. Ibid., p. 113 Carswell, John (1960). The South Sea Bubble. London: Cresset Press. p. 75–6. Harris, Ron (1994). “The Bubble Act: Its Passage and Its Effects on Business Organization”. The Journal of Economic History. 54 (3): 610–627. Davies, Paul Lyndon (2010). Introduction to Company Law. Oxford University Press. p. 1. Mayson, S.W; et al. (2005). Mayson, French & Ryan on Company Law. London: Oxford University Press. p. 55. “Limited Liability and the Known Unknown”. Social Science Research Network. 2018. Pulbrook, Anthony (1865). The Companies Act, 1862, with analytical references and copious index. London: Effingham Wilson. Limited Liability Company Reporter (2001, Jun. 4). “Historical Background of the Limited Liability Company”. Dies, Edward (1969). Behind the Wall Street Curtain. Ayer. p. 76. Nasaw, David (2006). Andrew Carnegie. p. 578–88. Smiddy, Linda O.; Cunningham, Lawrence A. (2010). Corporations and Other Business Organizations: Cases, Materials, Problems (7th ed.). LexisNexis. p. 228–31. Ibid., p. 241 The Law of Business Organizations. Cengage Learning. Nellis, John; Menezes, Rachel; Lucas, Sarah. “Privatization in Latin America: The rapid rise, recent fall, and continuing puzzle of a contentious economic policy”. Center for Global Development Policy Brief, Jan 2004. p. 1. Faiola, Anthony (2005, Oct. 15). “Japan Approves Postal Privatization”. Washington Post. Megginson, William L. (2005). The Financial Economics of Privatisation. Oxford University Press. p. 205–6. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 844 (2010) Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886) Roser, Max; Ritchie, Hannah (2018). “Technological Progress”. Published online at OurWorldInData.org.
The recent “separation” brouhaha has simmered down a bit now. President Trump signed an executive order stopping this two-decade-long immigration practice, but plans to continue his “zero-tolerance” policy of immediate prosecution along the southern border, not the fatuous catch-and-release program.
There’s always some common-sense thing that works leftists into a lather when it comes to immigrants. Whether it’s “depriving” foreign law-breakers of due process or the Supreme Court upholding Trump’s “immoral and dangerous” travel ban or “family detention,” the outrage-industrial complex is masterful at the ol’ bait-and-switch.
Why are so many otherwise intelligent and goodhearted people duped into believing a false narrative? It’s pure politics framed as ethics, tolerance, and mercy. It’s a grievous agenda, which pushes the peaceful principles of civilization (borders, language, culture) as hate and assimilation as un-American.
“A nation whose language is corrupted can no longer exist as a nation.” A country which forgets its own history “is like a beggar who knows neither his past nor where he is going.” — St. Ilia the Righteous
It’s an Americana contrivance which depends on the widespread belief in malignant myths, serpentine speech, and heart-tugging do-gooderism. Let’s bring the deleterious devils of bad history and puritanical-progressive theology “out of the shadows.”
A city on hill
In a letter to Trump, Metropolitan Tikhon of the Orthodox Church in America wrote, “let us embrace the vision of President Ronald Reagan who, in his farewell address, likened our country to a city on a hill, a ‘God-blessed’ city, a city that if needing walls, has walls with doors, doors ‘open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.’”
This “city on a hill” phrase was Reagan channeling John Winthrop, first governor of the Massachusetts Bay, in a 1630 Puritan sermon denoting these colonists’ “chosen” role as Christian reformers. Winthrop was referencing the Bible, of course, speaking specifically toward the Pilgrims as beacons in what they saw as the savage, but tamable New World.
“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.” — Matthew 5:14
As I’ve written before, the Puritans as examples of morally upright living didn’t having staying power. Simply put, their theology was too fluid, their soteriology too works dependent, and their ecclesiology nonexistent.
So what was Jesus talking about? He was personifying a town with His disciples, who would shine the holy light of Christ upon the dark world.
Obviously, “America” is not this outpost of Heaven as described in Scripture. That is the role of the Church, not government, not a nation, and certainly not an empire. It is Jesus’ followers who are to be God’s illumination.
Isn’t it ironic that a learned man such as Tikhon chose to quote Reagan of all people? I mean, it was the Gipper who signed the Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986, granting amnesty to 3-4 million illegals.
This law set into motion the demographic scheme we have today of 12-30 million illegals residing in the U.S. (depending upon whose stats you use), not to mention the 1.5 million legal immigrants who are admitted annually. It’s untenable and unsustainable – a house of cards built on a city of sand, not on a sturdy cornerstone.
“Nation of immigrants”
This cunning misnomer is oft repeated as a way to undermine America’s foundations of federalism. The misconception by design is so prevalent that many people think of America as a “nation” whose tradition is democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
And if your family has been in the U.S. for several generations, you’re not an immigrant. “You may have blood-ties to the Old World … (but) you are thoroughly an American,” says historian Brion McClanahan.
“No people have ever been able to maintain themselves when you have a situation of unlimited immigration. It’s never been done.” — Brion McClanahan
This obfuscation is quite effective in guilting people (especially white folks) into supporting porous borders and mass demographic upheaval. Funny that the poster boy of this feel-good fiction is the rootless West-Indies-born, Alexander Hamilton, who claimed in word to support federalism, but lobbied against it tirelessly in deed.
The Honduran newspaper, La Prensa, ran this political cartoon entitled “Nation of Immigrants,” perpetuating the open-door mythos. Only in America … well, and in Western Europe, too.
In a speech when meeting with Menahem Begin in 1981, Reagan described both Israel and the U.S. “as nations of immigrants, yearning to live in freedom and to fulfill the dreams of our forefathers.” Peculiar that Israel is celebrated for defending its borders and sovereignty by some of the very same people who want to dismantle America’s.
For the U.S., this fantastical “nation of immigrants” vision persists. America isn’t exceptional; it’s the exception to the common-sense rule, which most other successful countries embrace.
American dream
The Pilgrims “dreamed of building a city upon a hill,” Barack Obama said in a 2006 speech in Boston. “And the world watched, waiting to see if this improbable idea called America would succeed.
“I see students,” he concluded in addressing the diverse U-Mass crowd, “believing like those first settlers that they too could find a home in this city on a hill – that they too could find success in this unlikeliest of places.”
Here, we see again the appropriation of Winthrop’s “A Model of Christian Charity” sermon, which is considered by some as the precursor to “American Exceptionalism.” The U.S. is thrust forward as a “land of opportunity” upon which anyone can make it.
On one hand, this “national greatness” theory is powerful in that simply stepping foot on the “magic soil” transforms one into a rugged, liberty-loving, self-sufficient American. Too bad it’s not true.
In reality, the ethos is not great enough to maintain common-law heritage, the inheritance of freedom for our progeny, or the English language, much less keep illegals off of welfare or have them assimilate. Theft, erosion of culture, and balkanization are the intended result instead.
Really, “everyone?” Wow, no wonder Texas has become such a dirty and dangerous doormat. It should probably read “Do tread on me.” Going blue through demographic replacement is rough for citizens and is by design.
The ideology feeds into the view of America as an “idea” – just a malleable blob, whose meaning is subjective, ever-changing, and inconsistent. It’s an entity which is borderless, universal, and infinite in scope.
It’s akin to Woody Guthrie’s Marxist anthem, “This Land Is Your Land, this land is my land … this land was made for you and me.” America’s for everyone, the whole daggone globe! Just as Rome once was.
“If you take away the belief in a greater future,” Reagan told CPAC in 1984, “you cannot explain America – that we’re a people who believed there was a promised land; we were a people who believed we were chosen by God to create a greater world.”
The Great Communicator and other politicians have long understood that wrapping progressive rhetoric in biblical language and ahistorical ignorance can propel forward the reform ideal. It’s an extremely effective strategy, which works on audiences on both the left and right.
“American values” have become inextricably linked to egalitarian campfire songs, nihilism, and white guilt. But boy do its proponents like to co-opt dead white guys.
Immigration is about power
“[A]s long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours,” Reagan continued in his final presidential speech in 1989. So, what exactly was the Founders’ position on immigration?
They, as did subsequent generations of presidents and politicians, understood that immigration is about power. Immigrants equal votes either for you or for your opponent. Period.
“The Federalists feared the impact of French and Irish immigrants on elections so they sought to restrict immigration,” wrote McClanahan. “For those that insist this was ‘racism,’ last time I checked most of these people were white Europeans. Religion is not a race.”
Careful and controlled incremental immigration is as American as apple pie. Now, Thomas Jefferson did think the issue was for the States. But still, “Like his Federalist counterparts,” McClanahan explained, “Jefferson knew that these immigrants would vote for his faction, and thus allowing them into the United States earned political points.”
A sign from a strip mall in a rural county near my house. Pretty sure this isn’t the type of “liberty” Henry was referring to in his famous speech at St. John’s Church. Such is “the price of chains and slavery,” I suppose.
Grover Cleveland “certainly feared Chinese immigration, not because of race, but because … he thought they were ‘incapable of assimilation,’” McClanahan continued. He was skeptical if “the Chinese would adopt Anglo-American principles of government and society. Everyone in the founding generation thought this was essential, but that is not even discussed anymore.”
Now Abraham Lincoln had other concerns. He encouraged immigration, since they were to be the divine cannon fodder for conquest. In fact, one-quarter of the Union army were immigrants, a much higher proportion than was in the general population.
“I regard our immigrants as one of the replenishing streams appointed by providence to repair the ravages of internal war and its waste of national strength and health,” Lincoln said in 1864. Indissoluble Unionism by bayonet is God’s will, you see.
Immigrants, many of whom were Germans who’d fled the failed socialist revolutions of Europe in 1848, came to America with a love of centralized democracy, not states’ rights. They had no respect for regional heritage or Jeffersonian federalism. They were allies in Lincoln’s remaking of America, from limited-government republicanism to despotism.
Lincoln also used immigrants as a hedge against possible loss to the Confederacy and its farm-rich resources. “There is still a great deficiency of laborers in every field of industry, especially in agriculture,” he articulated in 1863. We need the mass importation of unskilled workers to help the economy. Sound familiar?
“Proposition” nation
Speaking of Dishonest Abe, he was a master at twisting language and distorting history. It was his “rhetoric for continuing revolution,” as cultural commentator and professor M.E. Bradford called it.
“Ours are loyalties to an ideal, not to a revelation, and this must have been the reason … why Lincoln referred to the American ‘proposition,’” wrote commentator William F. Buckley. Jr. These “perpetual loyalties” are then intrinsic in immortalizing America’s new identity as created by Lincoln himself. So much for conservatism, eh, Bill?
“Lincoln’s selective reading of the Declaration of Independence [in the Gettysburg Address], with an unduly emphasized and distorted interpretation of the concept of equality, injected into the American body politic a messianic style and disintegrative ferment that still bedevil us,” explains historian Clyde Wilson.
The Declaration is a historical document, which was crafted by a people rooted in British legal tradition. It wasn’t radical. Rather, it was conservative – a call to uphold Anglo-American liberties and to restore the colonists’ rights as Englishmen.
To the Founders, it was King George who was the revolutionary. American secession from the Crown, from their point of view, was simply a return to ancestral governmental customs.
Their “new Government” and “new Guards” were security measures to preserve “Free and Independent States” and to dissolve “Tyranny over these States.” But it wasn’t to birth something brand-new; it was to build upon the old, safeguarding tradition and virtue.
America’s Parthenon where sits the great martyr of the people, arms resting atop fasces – ancient Rome’s symbol of authority and coercive unity. The cult of equality, centralized power, and twisted tongues resonates from this modern Greco-Roman “temple.”
“Lincoln begins the Address with language that is directly patterned on the King James Bible so familiar to his audience,” writes Wilson. “’Four score and seven years’ rather than ‘eighty-seven;’ ‘brought forth’ rather than ‘established.’ Thus he invokes the ancient and sacred: the American Union as a special manifestation of God’s plan for the improvement of humanity.”
Lincoln speaks mystically of “a new nation,” “unfinished work,” and “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.” As the late Marxist historian Harry Jaffa remarked, through Lincoln’s crusade against the South and 700,000 dead, “… the rule of law as an expression of human equality was vindicated.”
To Jaffa, as with so many ill-informed Americans, the proposition was and is just. Forget that the proposition is utterly dystopian and dishonest, though.
“Let us not forget that [the Address] is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense,” commented journalist H.L. Mencken. “The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth.
“It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue,” he continued. “The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.”
The same people who think the Emancipation Proclamation “freed the slaves” are the same people who buy hot air like this. It’s like reading the Bible out of context. Lincoln is to statists as Martin Luther is to some radical Protestants: the real America didn’t exist before 1860, neither did true Christianity exist before 1517.
I suppose we all have our saints, but truth should be at their core. That’s one of the things that makes them holy. So if we cannot untwist our tongues, how can expect to have a productive dialog and hopefully avoid the suicidal path on which we find ourselves?
I say we practice the words of Psalm 34:13, “Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit.” That’d be a good start in shining a little light in the darkness.
Be sure to check out a “Twisted tongues” follow-up, which I hope to post in late August.
The recent “separation” brouhaha has simmered down a bit now. President Trump signed an executive order stopping this two-decade-long immigration practice, but plans to continue his “zero-tolerance” policy of immediate prosecution along the southern border, not the fatuous catch-and-release program.
There’s always some common-sense thing that works leftists into a lather when it comes to immigrants. Whether it’s “depriving” foreign law-breakers of due process or the Supreme Court upholding Trump’s “immoral and dangerous” travel ban or “family detention,” the outrage-industrial complex is masterful at the ol’ bait-and-switch.
Why are so many otherwise intelligent and goodhearted people duped into believing a false narrative? It’s pure politics framed as ethics, tolerance, and mercy. It’s a grievous agenda, which pushes the peaceful principles of civilization (borders, language, culture) as hate and assimilation as un-American.
“A nation whose language is corrupted can no longer exist as a nation.” A country which forgets its own history “is like a beggar who knows neither his past nor where he is going.” — St. Ilia the Righteous
It’s an Americana contrivance which depends on the widespread belief in malignant myths, serpentine speech, and heart-tugging do-gooderism. Let’s bring the toxic cocktail of bad history and puritanical-progressive theology “out of the shadows.”
A city on hill
In a letter to Trump, Metropolitan Tikhon of the Orthodox Church in America wrote, “let us embrace the vision of President Ronald Reagan who, in his farewell address, likened our country to a city on a hill, a ‘God-blessed’ city, a city that if needing walls, has walls with doors, doors ‘open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.’”
This “city on a hill” phrase was Reagan channeling John Winthrop, first governor of the Massachusetts Bay, in a 1630 Puritan sermon denoting these colonists’ “chosen” role as Christian reformers. Winthrop was referencing the Bible, of course, speaking specifically toward the Pilgrims as beacons in what they saw as the savage, but tamable New World.
“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.” — Matthew 5:14
As I’ve written before, the Puritans as examples of morally upright living didn’t having staying power. Simply put, their theology was too fluid, their soteriology works-based, and their ecclesiology nonexistent.
So what was Jesus talking about? He was personifying a town with His disciples, who would shine the holy light of Christ upon the dark world.
Obviously, “America” is not this outpost of Heaven as described in Scripture. That is the role of the Church, not government, not a nation, and certainly not an empire. It is Jesus’ followers who are to be God’s illumination.
Isn’t it ironic that a learned man such as Tikhon chose to quote Reagan of all people? I mean, it was the Gipper who signed the Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986, granting amnesty to 3-4 million illegals.
This law set into motion the demographic scheme we have today of 12-30 million illegals residing in the U.S. (depending upon whose stats you use), not to mention the 1.5 million legal immigrants who are admitted annually. It’s untenable and unsustainable – a house of cards built on a city of sand, not on a sturdy cornerstone.
“Nation of immigrants”
This cunning misnomer is oft repeated as a way to undermine America’s foundations of federalism. The misconception by design is so prevalent that many people think of America as a “nation” whose tradition is democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
And if your family has been in the U.S. for several generations, you’re not an immigrant. “You may have blood-ties to the Old World … (but) you are thoroughly an American,” says historian Brion McClanahan.
“No people have ever been able to maintain themselves when you have a situation of unlimited immigration. It’s never been done.” — Brion McClanahan
This obfuscation is quite effective in guilting people (especially white folks) into supporting porous borders and mass demographic upheaval. Funny that the poster boy of this feel-good fiction is the rootless West-Indies-born, Alexander Hamilton, who claimed in word to support federalism, but lobbied against tirelessly in deed.
The Honduras newspaper, La Prensa, ran this political cartoon entitled “Nation of Immigrants,” perpetuating the open-door mythos. Only in America … well, and in Western Europe, too.
In a speech when meeting with Menahem Begin in 1981, Reagan described both Israel and the U.S. “as nations of immigrants, yearning to live in freedom and to fulfill the dreams of our forefathers.” Peculiar that Israel is celebrated for defending its borders and sovereignty by some of the very same people who want to dismantle America’s.
For the U.S., this fantastical “nation of immigrants” vision persists. America isn’t exceptional; it’s the exception to the common-sense rule, which most other successful countries embrace.
American dream
The Pilgrims “dreamed of building a city upon a hill,” Barack Obama said in a 2006 speech in Boston. “And the world watched, waiting to see if this improbable idea called America would succeed.
“I see students,” he concluded in addressing the diverse U-Mass crowd, “believing like those first settlers that they too could find a home in this city on a hill – that they too could find success in this unlikeliest of places.”
Here, we see again the appropriation of Winthrop’s “A Model of Christian Charity” sermon, which is considered by some as the precursor to “American Exceptionalism.” The U.S. is thrust forward as a “land of opportunity” upon which anyone can make it.
On one hand, this “national greatness” theory is powerful in that simply stepping foot on the “magic soil” transforms one into a rugged, liberty-loving, self-sufficient American. Too bad it’s not true.
In reality, the ethos is not great enough to maintain common-law heritage, the inheritance of freedom for our progeny, or the English language, much less keep illegals off of welfare or have them assimilate. Theft, erosion of culture, and balkanization are the intended result instead.
Really, “everyone?” Wow, no wonder Texas has become such a dirty and dangerous doormat. It should probably read “Do tread on me.” Going blue through demographic replacement is rough for citizens and is by design.
The ideology feeds into the view of America as an “idea” – just a malleable blob, whose meaning is subjective, ever-changing, and inconsistent. It’s an entity which is borderless, universal, and infinite in scope.
It’s akin to Woody Guthrie’s Marxist anthem, “This Land Is Your Land, this land is my land … this land was made for you and me.” America’s for everyone, the whole daggone globe! Just as Rome once was.
“If you take away the belief in a greater future,” Reagan told CPAC in 1984, “you cannot explain America – that we’re a people who believed there was a promised land; we were a people who believed we were chosen by God to create a greater world.”
The Great Communicator and other politicians have long understood that wrapping progressive rhetoric in biblical language and ahistorical ignorance can propel forward the reform ideal. It’s an extremely effective strategy, which works on audiences on both the left and right.
“American values” have become inextricably linked to egalitarian campfire songs, nihilism, and white guilt. But boy do its proponents like to co-opt dead white guys.
Immigration is about power
“[A]s long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours,” Reagan continued in his final presidential speech in 1989. So, what exactly was the Founders’ position on immigration?
They, as did subsequent generations of presidents and politicians, understood that immigration is about power. Immigrants equal votes either for you or for your opponent. Period.
“The Federalists feared the impact of French and Irish immigrants on elections so they sought to restrict immigration,” wrote McClanahan. “For those that insist this was ‘racism,’ last time I checked most of these people were white Europeans. Religion is not a race.”
Careful and controlled incremental immigration is as American as apple pie. Now, Thomas Jefferson did think the issue was for the States. But still, “Like his Federalist counterparts,” McClanahan explained, “Jefferson knew that these immigrants would vote for his faction, and thus allowing them into the United States earned political points.”
A sign from a strip mall in a rural county near my house. Pretty sure this isn’t the type of “liberty” Henry was referring to in his famous speech at St. John’s Church. Such is “the price of chains and slavery,” I suppose.
Grover Cleveland “certainly feared Chinese immigration, not because of race, but because … he thought they were ‘incapable of assimilation,’” McClanahan continued. He was skeptical if “the Chinese would adopt Anglo-American principles of government and society. Everyone in the founding generation thought this was essential, but that is not even discussed anymore.”
Now Abraham Lincoln had other concerns. He encouraged immigration, since they were to be the divine cannon fodder for conquest. In fact, one-quarter of the Union army were immigrants, a much higher proportion than was in the general population.
“I regard our immigrants as one of the replenishing streams appointed by providence to repair the ravages of internal war and its waste of national strength and health,” Lincoln said in 1864. Indissoluble Unionism by bayonet is God’s will, you see.
Immigrants, many of whom were Germans who’d fled the failed socialist revolutions of Europe in 1848, came to America with a love of centralized democracy, not states’ rights. They had no respect for regional heritage or Jeffersonian federalism. They were allies in Lincoln’s remaking of America, from limited-government republicanism to despotism.
Lincoln also used immigrants as a hedge against possible loss to the Confederacy and its farm-rich resources. “There is still a great deficiency of laborers in every field of industry, especially in agriculture,” he articulated in 1863. We need the mass importation of unskilled workers to help the economy. Sound familiar?
“Proposition” nation
Speaking of Dishonest Abe, he was a master at twisting language and distorting history. It was his “rhetoric for continuing revolution,” as cultural commentator and professor M.E. Bradford called it.
“Ours are loyalties to an ideal, not to a revelation, and this must have been the reason … why Lincoln referred to the American ‘proposition,’” wrote commentator William F. Buckley. Jr. These “perpetual loyalties” are then intrinsic in immortalizing America’s new identity as created by Lincoln himself. So much for conservatism, eh, Bill?
“Lincoln’s selective reading of the Declaration of Independence [in the Gettysburg Address], with an unduly emphasized and distorted interpretation of the concept of equality, injected into the American body politic a messianic style and disintegrative ferment that still bedevil us,” explains historian Clyde Wilson.
The Declaration is a historical document, which was crafted by a people rooted in British legal tradition. It wasn’t radical. Rather, it was conservative – a call to uphold Anglo-American liberties and to restore the colonists’ rights as Englishmen.
To the Founders, it was King George who was the revolutionary. American secession from the Crown, from their point of view, was simply a return to ancestral governmental customs.
Their “new Government” and “new Guards” were security measures to preserve “Free and Independent States” and to dissolve “Tyranny over these States.” But it wasn’t to birth something brand-new; it was to build upon the old, safeguarding tradition and virtue.
America’s Parthenon where sits the great martyr of the people, arms resting atop fasces – ancient Rome’s symbol of authority and coercive unity. The cult of equality, centralized power, and twisted tongues resonates from this modern Greco-Roman “temple.”
“Lincoln begins the Address with language that is directly patterned on the King James Bible so familiar to his audience,” writes Wilson. “’Four score and seven years’ rather than ‘eighty-seven;’ ‘brought forth’ rather than ‘established.’ Thus he invokes the ancient and sacred: the American Union as a special manifestation of God’s plan for the improvement of humanity.”
Lincoln speaks mystically of “a new nation,” “unfinished work,” and “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.” As the late Marxist historian Harry Jaffa remarked, through Lincoln’s crusade against the South and 700,000 dead, “… the rule of law as an expression of human equality was vindicated.”
To Jaffa, as with so many ill-informed Americans, the proposition was and is just. Forget that the proposition is utterly dystopian and dishonest, though.
“Let us not forget that [the Address] is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense,” commented journalist H.L. Mencken. “The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth.
“It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue,” he continued. “The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.”
The same people who think the Emancipation Proclamation “freed the slaves” are the same people who buy hot air like this. It’s like reading the Bible out of context. Lincoln is to statists as Martin Luther is to some radical Protestants: the real America didn’t exist before 1860, neither did true Christianity exist before 1517.
I suppose we all have our saints, but truth should be at their core. That’s one of the things that makes them holy. So if we cannot untwist our tongues, how can expect to have a productive dialog and hopefully avoid the suicidal path on which we find ourselves?
I say we practice the words of Psalm 34:13, “Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit.” That’d be a good start in shining a little light in the darkness.
Be sure to check out part 2, which I hope to post in early August.
Daniel Elwood speaks to Johnny and Raylene about the spirit of self-ownership, actual anarchy, media, and pop culture. What an easy, relaxed, and entertaining conversation about our world today!
Through The Last Nighters (Reel unconventional film analysis – and featured on the Launch Pad Media, publishing every Monday) and various other projects, Daniel (and his co-host Robert Johnson) are working to educate others about the spirit of anarchy, Austrian economics, and natural law – No rulers does not mean no rules! Check it out! Continue reading “Blastoff! with Johnny Rocket Interview”
I have spent all day trying to decide whether or not to contribute my 2 cents (and still overpriced at that price point) but since everyone seems to ignore my political rantings, I figure I may as well speak out into the void.
I am NOT saying I agree with or condone the NFL players who are protesting by kneeling during the national anthem, but I do wonder why Americans are so incensed over the kneeling which is perceived as a slight on our country, but they aren’t more upset about real disrespect perpetrated by a federal government that routinely spies on us, probes us when we want to travel via airplane, and confiscates our hard earned dollars then wastes them with little oversight and virtually no accountability (for example the DOD and its $500+ BILLION annual budget has NEVER been audited). We were a nation born in opposition to tyranny, but some of our inalienable rights have slowly been watered down or completely stripped away from us by our government, and the citizenry doesn’t seem to bat an eyelash.
Isn’t the erosion of our civil liberties here at home at least equally a slap in the face to our service members and veterans who are/were asked to sacrifice their lives, limbs, and mental well being under the premise of preserving our freedom??
Maybe it’s just an overall feeling of helplessness and not knowing what avenues to pursue to effect change that keeps us from reacting as strongly to government overreach as we do to professional athletes taking a knee. Or maybe the water has been getting hotter and hotter so slowly and incrementally for so long that we froggies haven’t realized we are so close to being cooked.
PS. I love this country, and I am proud to be an American (thanks lee greenwood!) I think it is a great country filled with tremendous opportunities for those who will go out and seize them, but, as with anything, there is always room for improvement.
* This has been a test of the moral outrage system. We will now resume our regular broadcasting schedule of cute pictures of my son, parenting epiphanies, and mindless drivel interspersed far too frequently with political commentary.***
For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:
Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day….
Hello Voluntaryist Fans!
I am excited to present the first official sneak peek of the production process for Voluntaryist Origins II. The pencils and inks are well underway and I will be updating you with new sneak peeks on each stage of production.
Enjoy!
Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to listen to this episode on the Tom Cruise vehicle Mission Impossible. It has spawned numerous sequels stretching over two decades. He must be doing something right. Plenty of random analysis in this one.
This episode will self-destruct in 5 seconds.
Hasta lasagna, don’t get any on ya.
Ethan Hunt, a secret agent, is framed for the deaths of his espionage team.
A former Russian spy selling international intelligence on the black market… a list containing names of the top undercover agents in the world… a corrupt agent doubling for an unknown organization… a mysterious arms dealer… a spy agency ready to disavow the actions or existence of any of its members captured or killed… and one man on a mission which seems impossible…
Well, you may have missed the deal on Monday, July 16, where Bluehost celebrated its 15th company birthday by giving you guys a $2.65/month web hosting deal. That’s really insane, and should not have been passed up. While still not as great of a deal now, it’s still a good deal. We’ll give you a shout-out, back link, and undying gratitude if you buy your hosting through our link below:
When U.S. government operative Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and his mentor, Jim Phelps (Jon Voight), go on a covert assignment that takes a disastrous turn, Jim is killed, and Ethan becomes the prime murder suspect. Now a fugitive, Hunt recruits brilliant hacker Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames) and maverick pilot Franz Krieger (Jean Reno) to help him sneak into a heavily guarded CIA building to retrieve a confidential computer file that will prove his innocence.
During the episode, we made mention of the MTV Movie Awards spoof of Mission Impossible, here it is for your enjoyment:
We hope you enjoy this episode! We’ll be back next week with a review of The Hunger Games! We will have a fun guest article related to that movie series coming out with the release of the episode.
And also at Anchor.FM where you can even leave us messages of up to one-minute long that we can plug into the show, and respond to. Give it a try and we’ll see how it works together!
Check out our Patreon page to become a supporting listener and get access to this full recording and the other dozens of shows available: www.patreon.com/ReadRothbard
