In this episode of How to Kill a Sacred Cow, host Jay Henehan and I speak about the true causes of America's internal rot by going back to the British imperial stay-behinds who remained in the USA after the revolution of 1776 in order to destroy the republic from within. The leading figure of this poisonous operation was none other than Aaron Burr whose dark story is told at length in this program.
Very insightful and plausible explanation for people’s behavior then and current. I‘ve seen all my life, people’s denial of reality, very destructive to the whole. Stubborn and unproductive, praying for more receptive minds.
I have fought the battle for decades, against self deluded Libertarian’s, who adore the genocidal Andrew Jackson, for his dissolution of the 2nd National Bank, while holding in contempt Alexander Hamilton, who laid the foundations of the American System of Political (Industrial) Economy. Behold an epic and insightful presentation, from Plato-Socrates, to the present era; In short; Eureka!
This is long awaited and of import; my ancestor’s suffered the Trail of Tears.
Notwithstanding the fact that Aaron Burr was a scoundrel, that doesn't absolve Alexander Hamilton, in my mind. His American system was just the American version of British mercantilism.
I fail to see how centralization of banking, for instance, advances freedom for the individual. There were many other facets of Hamilton's/Clay's American system that are equally troubling for individual liberty.
Could it be that Hamilton and Burr were scoundrels, pursuing their own agendas of overturning the Constitution by different means?
At the risk of ignoring Thomas Paine’s caution of not attempting to administer medicine to the dead, perhaps it is you are but comatose. Could it be that you fail to understand the tenets of the American System of Political Economy, which was the basis for scientific and technological advancement and the basis for modern nation states and advancement of civilization, (vs British “Free Trade”, Slave Trade Mercantilism as witnessed by their domination of India and China? Suggest also, that you consider distinguishing between Private Central Banking and National Banks, along with Hamilton’s Federalist Papers and the Report in Manufactures in particular. It appears that you are wedded to the Malthusian misanthrope’s, von Mises and Von Hayek and their Libertarian, Ubermenchen wet dreams. Suggest to further contemplate the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and get a clue as to a more perfect Union along with providing for the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity. BTW: Behold the BRICS+, SCO, BRI, and EAEU and witness the tenets of the American System in play.
First of all, could I humbly suggest that you stop being so condescending? It's not a good look if you're trying to teach somebody something.
Yes, it could be that I don't understand the tenets of the American system. Why don't you educate me instead of talking down to me? What don't I understand?
I understand that, despite the flowery (deceptive) language, the American system was a system that advocated high tariffs, corporate welfare, large public debt, large public works projects, and a general meddling into all kinds of things that I fail to see how the Constitution supports. Am I wrong?
What does the Preamble have to do with this? It's a general statement of purpose, not a blueprint for any concrete policy(ies). How does a giant central government ensure the blessings of Liberty to us and our posterity? I say it doesn't. It does the exact opposite. We currently have a government bigger and more intrusive than anything Hamilton could have imagined. Are we more, or less, free? I would say we are obviously and unambiguously less free, by a long shot. What say you?
Yes, I am Libertarian (an anarchist, actually). If I wanted to be snotty, like you, I could ask what the hell you actually know about Hayek, von Mises, Rothbard, et. al. I picked up this disdain of Austrian economics fairly early in Matthew's remarks. What do the Habsburgs have to do with the infamous banking families? I don't think they're even from the same people. As far as I know, the Habsburgs were not related in any way to the families (Rothschilds, mainly) who make up the banking cartels. Is this (attempted) guilt by association somehow supposed to discredit Austrian economics? Do you have any expertise in economics at all?
Maybe history is stranger than I ever could have thought, but I don't think you have all the answers, either.
Private central banks versus national banks? Banks run by private interests as opposed to being run by politicians? This is a distinction without a difference. You're going to have to do a lot better than that to convince me that one is superior to the other. They are both the same to me. They both centralize money in the hands of unaccountable powers (Yes, despite elections, our rulers are largely unaccountable to us. They can't really represent us. This is impossible). They are both the negation of monetary freedom and sound money. Are you a devotee of that famous monetary crank, Ellen Brown? Sounds like it. (See how easy it is to simply dismiss someone's heroes?) I got a whiff of this, also, from the favorable comments about The Money Masters documentary (which I have and have watched a few times). That documentary did pretty well, right up until Bill Still advocated for a national bank and direct government issuance of currency. That's not how the Constitution lays out the idea of money. Nowhere does it grant Congress, or anyone else, the authority to control the issuance of money. It authorizes Congress to coin money i.e., to put what already was considered money into a standardized form. That's it! It did not, and does not, authorize a national bank, or a private central bank. Money is a product of markets, not governments. Governments are sovereign only over that which the people have delegated to them. They did not grant any powers to regulate the amount of money in society, only to coin it and set the standard for U.S. coinage.
Aaron Burr sounds like a scoundrel. Alexander Hamilton was a scoundrel. He had no special knowledge about any of the subjects on which he wrote. He simply made a case for an expanded role of the federal government, in direct opposition to the spirit of the Constitution. He is the author of all kinds of nonsense about implied powers and such. He is easily the worst of the Founders.
May I suggest you read Spooner's No Treason essays for a better understanding of what the Constitution is? I think his explanation and understanding is light years better than yours.
I thought I was a conspiracy nut. You and Matthew and the guy interviewing him take that idea to a whole new level.
Shared, Matt.. I truly respect how Jay was so positive and truthful about your work. I feel the same exact way. No, use to be jealous and hurtful as many petty ones can be with Genius work.
Very insightful and plausible explanation for people’s behavior then and current. I‘ve seen all my life, people’s denial of reality, very destructive to the whole. Stubborn and unproductive, praying for more receptive minds.
https://youtu.be/qOvPDL3KH-Q
I have fought the battle for decades, against self deluded Libertarian’s, who adore the genocidal Andrew Jackson, for his dissolution of the 2nd National Bank, while holding in contempt Alexander Hamilton, who laid the foundations of the American System of Political (Industrial) Economy. Behold an epic and insightful presentation, from Plato-Socrates, to the present era; In short; Eureka!
This is long awaited and of import; my ancestor’s suffered the Trail of Tears.
❤️Wage Peace,
⭐️Keep the Faith
#AttacktheMIMAC
#DeNazthePlanet!
Notwithstanding the fact that Aaron Burr was a scoundrel, that doesn't absolve Alexander Hamilton, in my mind. His American system was just the American version of British mercantilism.
I fail to see how centralization of banking, for instance, advances freedom for the individual. There were many other facets of Hamilton's/Clay's American system that are equally troubling for individual liberty.
Could it be that Hamilton and Burr were scoundrels, pursuing their own agendas of overturning the Constitution by different means?
At the risk of ignoring Thomas Paine’s caution of not attempting to administer medicine to the dead, perhaps it is you are but comatose. Could it be that you fail to understand the tenets of the American System of Political Economy, which was the basis for scientific and technological advancement and the basis for modern nation states and advancement of civilization, (vs British “Free Trade”, Slave Trade Mercantilism as witnessed by their domination of India and China? Suggest also, that you consider distinguishing between Private Central Banking and National Banks, along with Hamilton’s Federalist Papers and the Report in Manufactures in particular. It appears that you are wedded to the Malthusian misanthrope’s, von Mises and Von Hayek and their Libertarian, Ubermenchen wet dreams. Suggest to further contemplate the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and get a clue as to a more perfect Union along with providing for the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity. BTW: Behold the BRICS+, SCO, BRI, and EAEU and witness the tenets of the American System in play.
First of all, could I humbly suggest that you stop being so condescending? It's not a good look if you're trying to teach somebody something.
Yes, it could be that I don't understand the tenets of the American system. Why don't you educate me instead of talking down to me? What don't I understand?
I understand that, despite the flowery (deceptive) language, the American system was a system that advocated high tariffs, corporate welfare, large public debt, large public works projects, and a general meddling into all kinds of things that I fail to see how the Constitution supports. Am I wrong?
What does the Preamble have to do with this? It's a general statement of purpose, not a blueprint for any concrete policy(ies). How does a giant central government ensure the blessings of Liberty to us and our posterity? I say it doesn't. It does the exact opposite. We currently have a government bigger and more intrusive than anything Hamilton could have imagined. Are we more, or less, free? I would say we are obviously and unambiguously less free, by a long shot. What say you?
Yes, I am Libertarian (an anarchist, actually). If I wanted to be snotty, like you, I could ask what the hell you actually know about Hayek, von Mises, Rothbard, et. al. I picked up this disdain of Austrian economics fairly early in Matthew's remarks. What do the Habsburgs have to do with the infamous banking families? I don't think they're even from the same people. As far as I know, the Habsburgs were not related in any way to the families (Rothschilds, mainly) who make up the banking cartels. Is this (attempted) guilt by association somehow supposed to discredit Austrian economics? Do you have any expertise in economics at all?
Maybe history is stranger than I ever could have thought, but I don't think you have all the answers, either.
Private central banks versus national banks? Banks run by private interests as opposed to being run by politicians? This is a distinction without a difference. You're going to have to do a lot better than that to convince me that one is superior to the other. They are both the same to me. They both centralize money in the hands of unaccountable powers (Yes, despite elections, our rulers are largely unaccountable to us. They can't really represent us. This is impossible). They are both the negation of monetary freedom and sound money. Are you a devotee of that famous monetary crank, Ellen Brown? Sounds like it. (See how easy it is to simply dismiss someone's heroes?) I got a whiff of this, also, from the favorable comments about The Money Masters documentary (which I have and have watched a few times). That documentary did pretty well, right up until Bill Still advocated for a national bank and direct government issuance of currency. That's not how the Constitution lays out the idea of money. Nowhere does it grant Congress, or anyone else, the authority to control the issuance of money. It authorizes Congress to coin money i.e., to put what already was considered money into a standardized form. That's it! It did not, and does not, authorize a national bank, or a private central bank. Money is a product of markets, not governments. Governments are sovereign only over that which the people have delegated to them. They did not grant any powers to regulate the amount of money in society, only to coin it and set the standard for U.S. coinage.
Aaron Burr sounds like a scoundrel. Alexander Hamilton was a scoundrel. He had no special knowledge about any of the subjects on which he wrote. He simply made a case for an expanded role of the federal government, in direct opposition to the spirit of the Constitution. He is the author of all kinds of nonsense about implied powers and such. He is easily the worst of the Founders.
May I suggest you read Spooner's No Treason essays for a better understanding of what the Constitution is? I think his explanation and understanding is light years better than yours.
I thought I was a conspiracy nut. You and Matthew and the guy interviewing him take that idea to a whole new level.
Peace.
Different from Gore Vidal's fictionalization. Vidal did conduct thorough research for his novels.
Don't you mind to add the VK share button... It would be nice and less complicated for me... Thank you!
What about the nazis that welcomed in after WWII?
👍🏽👍🏿👍—great American history conversation with Jay Henehan.
Shared, Matt.. I truly respect how Jay was so positive and truthful about your work. I feel the same exact way. No, use to be jealous and hurtful as many petty ones can be with Genius work.