Hi DarbyJie,

I found Nock's book in PDF at Click to view link

Click to view link

I'll read it, and I'll look into any discrepancies I might find. Because of the Princeton project, far more of Jefferson's writings and other documents are available today then when Nock wrote his book.

Reply from The Daily Bell
"To insist as you do, that the Constitution imposed some sort of oligarchical tyranny on the US is an exaggeration."

So there was no tyranny? You're denying slavery, and you're denying the Indian cleansing? Or, you think they shouldn't be considered "men" per the Declaration of Independence?
Because Mother Ann and the Shakers weren't persecuted, that's proof that no one was?
And you're denying that the founders were all major land owners, who needed independence to secure their land grants from the Crown?


"And by the way, Thomas Jefferson did not sign the document. If he was the oligarch you imply he was, surely he would have."

The answer to your mis-informed comment is in the Wiki quote that you provided. Jefferson would've signed the Constitution, but was on an extended trip in France. Considering that he became the first Secretary of State, and later pulled one of the most corrupt electoral schemes of all time in order to get elected President, your suggestion that he was somehow against the formation of the federal government is comical.

The only "weird Georgist thing going on here" is that I understand land, and that when some people own it and others don't, those that don't aren't free, and there cannot be a free market. But I see that you're so invested in your "overseas money power" theory, and the hypocritical libertarian position on land, that no amount of self-evident truth is going to change the DB story.

Reply from The Daily Bell

"Since you decline to make a specific point, it is difficult come to grips with what you are implying with your dark talk about Jefferson's slave-owning preferences and the larger issues of US independence being a methodology of immediate authoritarianism. So far as your other points are concerned, we have helped lead the way in the blogosphere regarding what we call "directed history" so you are more or less preaching to the choir in this regard. Of course, you know that ... ."

I do not argue that US independence was a "methodology of immediate authoritarianism".

As you can see, I didn't initiate the discussion of Jefferson. When I made the simple and obvious point about the existence of an American oligarchy of land owners in place upon the drafting of the Constitution, I had no intention of singling out Jefferson. When the history of Jefferson was brought into the discussion, I realized that it's the perfect example of how what happened then has led to where we are now. Everything happens for a reason, and truth is never dark.

It is clear, historically, that Jefferson despised British rule, and everything about the British aristocracy, and passionately wanted independence from them. Had I been there, I likely would've been Jefferson's ally on that.

It is also clear, historically, that Jefferson had a lot to gain from independence. Because most of his father's lands were not settled within the time allowed by the Crown, the Crown attempted to revoke the grant, all 800,000 acres of it, and a long legal battle ensued, eventually with Thomas as the estate-holder and the Loyal Company refusing to surrender the land to the Crown. Obviously, he could've lost everything he owned if not for independence, and the Revolution practically settled the matter. I do not argue that this was his only motivation for independence; only that it would be unreasonable to believe that the circumstances were not a factor. It would also be unreasonable to not recognize that the other "founding fathers" were in a similar position, as they were all beneficiaries of land grants, and it was clear that the Crown intended to revoke grants for unsettled land and lay claim to newly "discovered" land to the West.

For all the talk of natural rights and the equality of man that stirred passions and conviction, there was a glaring contradiction in play. The actions of the revolutionaries had the effect of cutting out the monarch and replacing him with themselves, an oligarchy of land owners who cooperatively held supreme power over the land, and the natural rights and equality that they vowed to insure really only applied to white land owners who agreed to be subjects of their new government.

The "freedom" that we think existed then stemmed largely from the reality of a massive expanse of land to be "discovered", claimed, and conquered, and the oligarchs' interests in encouraging exploration and new claims. A lot of people found new freedom from their land claims, and a lot of people lost their freedom from those land claims. The tragedy of slavery is no greater than the tragedy delivered to the native people under the guise of freedom. While there's evidence in Jefferson's writings that he struggled somewhat with the contradictions he lived regarding slavery, there's no such doubt expressed regarding his intentions to entirely cleanse and/or exterminate the native population. His race-superiority-justified "manifest destiny" vision didn't end at the Pacific; rather, he dreamed of a global empire, "free" of course in the limited way that he imagined.

I don't believe that Jefferson intended to be, or saw himself as, authoritarian or oppressive. He was born into privilege, just like any king, and never experienced life on the other side of the land ownership equation. He just did what almost any human being does in those shoes, which is to take advantage of an advantage and rationalize it as deserved.

Jefferson's history regarding slavery is fascinating because his writings reveal that he knew it was immoral and feared that it would some day lead to a violent uprising, yet consistently his view that blacks were naturally inferior and his dependence on taking their labor to provide for his regal lifestyle won out over his moral conviction, to the end. He was very human, and the strength of his moral conviction was not exceptional, by standards then or now.

The newly-independent United States could've set out on any path the founders chose. They could've walked the talk, sharing the land and respecting all people equally, but that's not what they did. They kept the land grants and all the associated power and privilege, which they had no natural right to in the first place, and set themselves up as rulers over everyone else.

Today, the Jefferson ideals are still our cultural identity, mountains of hypocrisy and self-righteousness included. Jefferson was asked by his peers to write the Declaration of Independence because he had a gift with words, and could document a vision bigger than life. He did that, and we've yet to live up to it.

The fundamental moral fault of every king is that he has the "right" to claim vast stretches of land as his own and thereby make slaves of all who need that land to live upon. The simple, painful truth is that our nation was founded on the same corrupt principle, minus the king. The new oligarchs couldn't resist the temptations such power delivers and they sought more and more, they rationalized it as good, and the government and its empire never stopped growing until the present. Where we are today, banking cabal and all, is the inevitable result of the path chosen back then. It's an evolution that, once set in motion, is almost impossible to stop.

That's my specific point, DB.

If I'm really preaching to the choir, then maybe you'd consider applying some aforethought instead of sending the off-the-cuff, hypocritical comments?

Reply from The Daily Bell

We disagree with you on almost every point regarding early US freedoms. You seem to have some weird Georgist thing going on here. The problem with the US is and was overseas Money Power. This fantastical oligarchy of yours certainly had an impact on the freedoms of those in the US, or what was becoming the US. But out of possibly thousands of examples, we will give only one as a rebuttal: Mother Ann and The Shakers.

This woman came over to the US in the 1700s and built a chain of about 20 settlements in the US in her lifetime and beyond. Nobody stopped her. Nobody took her over or taxed her and regulated her. She had her problems, but her concept and faith was strong and her followers built a unique socity. That happened THEN. It likely could NOT happen today. The Shaker communities thrived for a century. It was only AFTER the Civil War, which is the demarcation between the relative freedoms of the US and increasing tyranny, that the Shakers went into decline as well. To insist as you do, that the Constitution imposed some sort of oligarchical tyranny on the US is an exaggeration.

It was surely in ways a statist document and harbingered trouble. But those behind it, had to fight a bloody Civil War to fully implement their schemes. And by the way, Thomas Jefferson did not sign the document. If he was the oligarch you imply he was, surely he would have.

Here is something Wiki.Answers:

"It is important to note that the "secret convention" was initially formed as a means of amending the Articles of Confederation, the second of the 4 Organic Laws of the United States of America. In this secret convention held in the summer of 1787, there was much dissension and distrust among many of the 55 delegates that attended. Over 75 had been invited so why didn't they all want to attend? Hmmm, I think that the ones who failed to show knew there was a rat in the kitchen and wanted no part of it. So would Jefferson had been a part of this delegation of floundering fathers if he had been in Paris trying to broker a deal with the King of England to give up his former claim to the Americas? I think not."

Seems OK now... .I hope:)

My reply is chronologically out of order - is the software broken? Should I repost?

DarbyJie

Reply from The Daily Bell

Huh? Go ahead.

Dear Lamb,

As I see no practical way of resolving the issue of warring narratives, which would only result in both of us claiming that our sources are the truthful ones, I thought it would be better and much more profitable to recommend to you the following book, available at Click to view link and also as a free PDF download.

(I'm sure you have heard of Albert Jay Nock, and would agree to his extremely fine reputation.)

Hope you enjoy it and profit from it.

Click to view link

Happy reading!
Darby

Watching Hannity interview RP the other night was another shining example of idiocracy in motion. Why Paul didn't just get up and walk away is beyond me. Hannity deserved it and it would have been 'presidential'.

I am one of those Mr. Krieg is referring to when it come to not participating in this joke everyone tries to call free elections. By not voting the Darpa machines will have one less vote to flip.

Those Senators that committed treason deserve something else than a chance for re-election. Respecting DB's stance on violence I'll let the reader decide.

Mr. Krieg is correct about it being all over for the Republic. His timing is off by about 100years. The Republic ended with the Civil War and was certified lost with the passage of the 17th.

I stand in amazement when watching Americans walking around without a clue with their head down staring at their cell phone waiting for the next government alert.

Does anyone see all the financial issues on he globe being held off from their inevitable conclusion for 10-15 years?

Does anyone see all the international conflicts and their interrelationships staying at the saber rattling stage for 10-15 years?

Does anyone see Fukushima and all the worn out Nuclear plants staying stable for 10 -15 years?

Does anyone think Lady Gaga will still be popular in... .. oh forget it.

Ok, Ok, enough already! Now that you have delineated the worst case scenerio, "Tell us if You Will" What is the solution, how can we as voters by-pass the rigged voting machines? The votes of dead people? The votes of illegal aliens?
The drive-by media is marginalizing Ron Paul, Merely ignoring him, is the worst they can do! Tell us what recourse do we have?

Reply from The Daily Bell

Aw, c'mon Gloomy Gus ...

Come on and show us your teeth
And what you've got underneath
And just remember to:

Smile, smile, smile (c'mon and you've gotta)
Smile, smile, smile
Smile, smile, smile

Come on and show us your teeth
and what you've got underneath
Smile, smile, smile (you gotta smile)
Smile, smile, smile (just remeber to)
and turn the world around!

Click to view link

Sorry, here's the link:

Click to view link

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks.

Regarding 15 more years, apparently our congress-critters estimate only 10 more years. Karen Kwiatkowski had this little gem over at Rockwell regarding her opponent Bob Goodlatte

(Click to view link

I'll close with a little story about the guy I seek to replace in Washington. He's a typical politician. He talks like a conservative but always votes to borrow more, to spend more, and to regulate more. He's cozy with lobbyists, and always looks out for his own interests instead of listening to the people in our district. He's just an average Congressman. But one of his constituents asked him a question exactly one year ago, in a private face-to-face moment. My friend asked his ten-term Congressman this question. It went like this: "Be honest. How much longer do we really have in this country?"

Now you might imagine that this Congressman would have not understood the question, or perhaps that he wouldn't have known the answer, or wouldn't have wanted to answer the question. But our Congressman said this: "We have about ten years."

Reply from The Daily Bell

"Yes, there has been over the past two decades a terrific interest in delegitimizing Jefferson in order to delegitimize the Declaration of Independence, which is certainly a noble, historical document. You certainly understand this falls under the rubric of an active. ad-hominen logical fallacy. You do, don't you?"

I do understand the logical fallacy of the idea that Jefferson's personal behaviors have anything to do with the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. Do you?

I also understand that there has been over the past two and a half centuries a terrific interest in legitimizing Jefferson in order to legitimize the American oligarchy, their land monopoly, and their manifest destiny and empire-building with attendant extermination of native peoples. Do you?

I also understand that the control of information began with control of the major book publishing companies a century ago, and therefore virtually everything in the school textbooks is half-truths. Do you?

Oh, but in the case of Jefferson, the mythic, Godly image is for real, it must be, because what would we do without it? Totally juvenile, DB.

If you're disputing facts in my post, please specify.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Since you decline to make a specific point, it is difficult come to grips with what you are implying with your dark talk about Jefferson's slave-owning preferences and the larger issues of US independence being a methodology of immediate authoritarianism. So far as your other points are concerned, we have helped lead the way in the blogosphere regarding what we call "directed history" so you are more or less preaching to the choir in this regard. Of course, you know that ....

Hi DarbyJie,

Are you surprised that you got a sanitized version of history about Jefferson? Since when has it been otherwise (pre-internet)?

Thanks to Jefferson's prolific writing, and The Jefferson Papers project at Princeton University that's collected some 70,000 documents from around the world and has been publishing them beginning in 1950, now at 36 volumes, historians probably know more about him than any other man of his time. Just in the past 20 years there's been hundreds of books and papers published by historians that have mortalized the previously-deified Jefferson.

If you decide to sincerely study Jefferson, you'll find that my critique is mild.
Following is some of the essays and books I've read on Jefferson the past few years, and the link to the Princeton project. The Wiki page on Jefferson is somewhat detailed as well.

Click to view link~tjpapers/
Click to view link
Click to view link
Click to view link
Click to view link
Click to view link
Click to view link

Reply from The Daily Bell

Yes, there has been over the past two decades a terrific interest in delegitimizing Jefferson in order to delegitimize the Declaration of Independence, which is certainly a noble, historical document. You certainly understand this falls under the rubric of an active. ad-hominen logical fallacy. You do, don't you?

@ Saintpaulia

" The dynamic adversary is us"

Freep Much? Ever hear of Iraq or Afghanistan? Can't milk that Grenada glory forever. When I made reference to 'dynamic adversary' I was referring to individuals representing those states. Also how many people in the US right now know about NDAA? How many care?

The major point of todays article is true. USA- RIP

I would not be surprised if RP has some skeletons laying around, but compared to the rest of the pack, he is still the only one espousing Constitutional government and sound money.

Now if someone has proof that he is simply the front for a hidden sinister cabal and will pull an Obama-style bait and switch, then I hope that comes out fast.

In the political landscape, I see no one who is "perfect"; we can only play the cards (politicians) we are dealt and right now RP looks to me like the best of the imperfect lot.

End of argument -- or should I say I rest my case.

Thanks for your response. I would appreciate if you could provide a source for the "historical narrative" which you have provided (above). Curiously, it in no way resembles any history(s) I have read of Thomas Jefferson's life...

Will await with interest your citation,and reply.

Regards,
DarbyJie

Hhmmm, regarding that 15 year scenario. Don't bet the farm on it.
This site has a somewhat dismal recap of the situation and several projections.
Click to view link
The center of the shadow banking system that is imploding is in London.
The term du jour is hyper-hypothecation.
The shadow banking system is in the early stages of collapse. It is evaporating about $ 130 billion a month.

This article is from a writer who has been VERY accurate. The conclusion implied in the article is that the collapse will be analogous to the discharge of a capacitor :)
Click to view link
It appears that the collapse will primarily be hyper-deflationary. There will be price inflation in spite of the overall deflation tendency.
Bank deposits are NOT safe. Keep cash at home. It will be in such short supply that it will hold value for a while.

End of argument,,,, that's a blanket statement.
It appears that Paul will chug happily along until some crucial moment. Then, somebody will dig up his early newsletters and throw out a few quotes;
"Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.'Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,'Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered 'as decent people.' Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:"
Click to view link

In spite of the constitution and sound money, someone may still try to yank the rug out from under him.

Hi DarbyJie,
I can't imagine how you interpreted that post as an attack against Jefferson. It was a simple statement of the obvious, that an oligarchy of land owners existed from the Constitution onward.

We can agree that he was a exceptionally well-educated and talented man, bright in certain areas, and his role in drafting the Declaration of Independence is undisputed.

He was born into an elite family, his mother of the elite, English Randolph family, and his father was one of the principals of the Loyal Land Company that was granted 800,000 acres of land in Virginia by the Crown, by far the largest land grant in Virginia, and was also a major slaveholder.

Thomas inherited land and slaves from his father, and derived his wealth largely from the work of slaves. He regularly gave them away as gifts, sometimes as children, breaking up families, and throughout his life, even after his Presidency, argued in letters against those who advocated freedom for them.

Although he was initially against the formation of a federal government and shared many of the ideas of the anti-federalists, opposed Washington and Adams on many issues including the Alien and Sedition Act, and secretly wrote and lobbied the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which encouraged secession, he later served the quickly-growing Federal beast, blatantly violating the Constitution in secretly negotiating with France for the Louisiana Purchase and taking on a massive debt to pay for it, attempting to use the Alien and Sedition Act against Aaron Burr for essentially the same as he had done with the aforementioned Resolutions, and devastating the economies of coastal colonies with his Embargo Act of 1807 as economic warfare against Britain. He instituted the policy of "Indian removal", and negotiated a deal with the State of Georgia to use the US military to forcefully expel the Cherokee from all of Georgia, to West of the Mississippi, in exchange for Georgia releasing legal claims to discovery lands to its West, in direct violation of the US government treaty with the Cherokee Nation that guaranteed rights to lands they inhabited.

He was indeed part of the new American oligarchy, and he lived and acted like European royalty.

Sorry to shake up your patriotic myths, DarbyJie, but there's no chance we can fix the present if we can't honestly come to terms with how we got to this place.

My guess is the hair stylist :-) regards, onebornfree