This week, host Jim Fetzer invited me onto his show to lay out my historical research and grand unifying thesis of universal history with a focus on the roots of the new world order. By exploring the failure of the French revolution of 1789, the rise of Napoleonic wars between 1795-1815, the Congress of Vienna’s restoration of oligarchism, and weaponization of masses from the Young Europe anarchist movement through the color revolutions of the 20-21st centuries, we zero in on why this system of world government has failed on so many occasions. With this context established, we can then better appreciate which opposing currents of thinking and action have resulted in a diminution of oligarchical power during the past 300 years and how this history empowers us to navigate through our current age of chaos and misinformation.
I was listening to one of the latest great game interviews with Matthew earlier and noticed that he has begun to address the Alexander Hamilton bashing that is prevalent amongst what I believe to be the vast majority of the anti-federal reserve, anti-mandate, pro freedom wing of the right. Definitely a position more evident amongst Mises caucus libertarians than amongst populist leaning Trump supporters. Definitely the prevailing point of view amongst bitcoin and gold standard enthusiasts, including most of the writers over at zero hedge. lLooking forward to reading more on this subject.
I've been very impressed with Matt's perspective on history since I first heard him on a podcast with Lew Rockwell not too long ago. However, I am having trouble reconciling his anti-federal reserve, pro Alexander Hamilton, national bank perspective on what went wrong at the founding of our republic with what I consider the much more predominant perspective that is also anti-federal reserve but considers Alexander Hamilton to be one of the great villains of American history and that the concept of a national bank is misguided in any form.
I'm not saying Matt is wrong. In fact, I find his historical analysis to be much more detailed and insightful on the actual facts of history than most who approach this subject from the predominant anarcho-libertarian perspective. However, I have this strong gut feeling that with a country this large and geographically distributed as it is, centralization will always lead to tyranny and ultimately to war. I'm more inclined to entertain the idea that the Hamiltonian perspective was viable in a world of a relatively small number of colonists in a narrow strip of land along the eastern seaboard. But that perhaps it cannot be expanded to a country that has essentially become an empire in the interim. Maybe the Hamiltonian perspective would be more viable if the country was broken apart into manageably sized regions. I certainly don't feel that we have yet run the Hamiltonian experiment to know how it might turn out. Arguably, we had a quasi-Hamiltonian structure from the end of the Civil War until the establishment of the federal reserve, but that was only about half a century.
Brilliant. Have never heard anything like it. Love how Jim Fetzer expressed his delight at discovering you Mathew.
That's what I call a Matt-sterpiece of history! Thanks Matt
Sweeping is apt! Massive.
Thank you. Look forward to watching
I was listening to one of the latest great game interviews with Matthew earlier and noticed that he has begun to address the Alexander Hamilton bashing that is prevalent amongst what I believe to be the vast majority of the anti-federal reserve, anti-mandate, pro freedom wing of the right. Definitely a position more evident amongst Mises caucus libertarians than amongst populist leaning Trump supporters. Definitely the prevailing point of view amongst bitcoin and gold standard enthusiasts, including most of the writers over at zero hedge. lLooking forward to reading more on this subject.
I've been very impressed with Matt's perspective on history since I first heard him on a podcast with Lew Rockwell not too long ago. However, I am having trouble reconciling his anti-federal reserve, pro Alexander Hamilton, national bank perspective on what went wrong at the founding of our republic with what I consider the much more predominant perspective that is also anti-federal reserve but considers Alexander Hamilton to be one of the great villains of American history and that the concept of a national bank is misguided in any form.
I'm not saying Matt is wrong. In fact, I find his historical analysis to be much more detailed and insightful on the actual facts of history than most who approach this subject from the predominant anarcho-libertarian perspective. However, I have this strong gut feeling that with a country this large and geographically distributed as it is, centralization will always lead to tyranny and ultimately to war. I'm more inclined to entertain the idea that the Hamiltonian perspective was viable in a world of a relatively small number of colonists in a narrow strip of land along the eastern seaboard. But that perhaps it cannot be expanded to a country that has essentially become an empire in the interim. Maybe the Hamiltonian perspective would be more viable if the country was broken apart into manageably sized regions. I certainly don't feel that we have yet run the Hamiltonian experiment to know how it might turn out. Arguably, we had a quasi-Hamiltonian structure from the end of the Civil War until the establishment of the federal reserve, but that was only about half a century.