What Would the American Revolution Have Been Like Without Francis Marion?

The path our descendants took had a significant impact on who was present in certain societies in the midst of particular events. Who would have thought that a 2nd generation French Huguenot immigrant (grandson of French Huguenot Gabriel Marion born in 1732), a Continental officer who happened to break an ankle exiting a rowdy officer party in Charles Town, which meant he was to be recuperating at home near the Santee River when the British captured Charles Town, would then morph into a guerilla leader to lead the region in freedom from the British Empire?

I guess I am curious as to the kind of people whose character is shaped by their existing situations as well as the history their family had experienced. Basically, what is the difference between Francis’ ancestors who left France after religious persecution left them few options but to emigrate the the New World, specifically the Carolinas .. and my own ancestors who left the Netherlands in 1846 for the New World, to Michigan?

What triggered this thought was reading Bionic Mosquito’s post called War. Bionic was reviewing a work called ” Rebel in the Ranks: Martin Luther, the Reformation, and the Conflicts That Continue to Shape Our World“, by Brad S. Gregory. This work gives a lot of background material to what is commonly called an era of religious wars was actually political strife at its root.

“What started as a reform of one Church produces an open-ended array of competing churches, which virtually no one at the time considers a good thing.”

So we are talking about a time in this world when the Holy Roman Empire and the wedding of politics and religion was providing the masses (no pun intended), were challenged on a variety of fronts. How this played out depended on the countries and cultures that were present:

The Reformation played out differently in Germany, France, England, and the Low Countries.

I was drawn to the parts that pertained to Francis Marion, and myself.

Regarding Francis’ grandfather’s experience, there was an attempt in Germany to mend the rift between the Catholic church and the reformers:

Catholic leaders reject the most fundamental Protestant premise: The Church offers false doctrines. On a second and also important premise, there are plenty of Catholic leaders that recognize that there are and have been sinful abuses and a lack of holiness among both clergy and laity.

Further attempts are made at some sort of reconciliation between the Reformers and the Church. The final meaningful attempt was made at Regensburg in 1541, the Colloquy (or Diet) of Regensburg.

So when dialog and reason fail ..

… then come the wars. Catholic against Protestant; Catholic and Magisterial Protestants against other Protestant sects. Next comes the Peace of Augsburg, “a Holy Roman Empire with two religions, Lutheran and Catholic.”

So in France, where Gabriel Marion lives:

There is no Lutheranism in France. Calvinism arrives in the form of the Huguenots. Pamphlets, trials, executions. As late as 1554, there are still no established Calvinist churches in France – although the number of underground believers is growing. By 1562, perhaps 800 such churches exist. Most are far from Paris, in the south. The growth emboldens the Huguenots: they destroy church art, deface alters and harass clergy.

They make up perhaps ten percent of the population, but a much larger proportion of the nobility – a problem because still in the sixteenth century no ruler could rule without noble support.

There is blow-back from this violent revolt:

Beginning in 1562, a series of eight civil wars ensue; from start to finish, these last longer than the Thirty Years’ War with perhaps 3 million deaths .. wars for political power: a dynastic power struggle between powerful noble families in the line for succession to the French throne – one Catholic and the other Reformed – with the reigning royal family trying to stride the middle in the form of Catholic conciliation.

Massacres, conversions, refugees, assassinations, acts of revenge. After thirty-six years, in 1598, King Henry IV signed the Edict of Nantes, granting the Huguenots substantial rights but leaving them with no army. Fearing an erosion of these rights – as would soon enough prove a rational fear – hundreds of thousands of Huguenots flee France for Calvinist territories in England, the Dutch Republic, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Carolina Coast of the New World.

So the “type” of person that Francis’ grandfather was, was someone who opted for the relative unknown of the colony of Carolina over that of England and the Dutch Republic. A true pioneer, this man saw a vision of religious freedom AND hard work of the land to provide his family, in the long term, better opportunities for life and freedom in a ‘new world’.

I can only think that Francis’ character was part DNA and part stories of his grandfather adventures in Europe.

On to my own side note, it seems that my ancestors were able to stay in Europe another 150 years as they happened to be a part of the Dutch Republic:

Belgium and the Netherlands; the northern provinces take their independence from Spain and support Reformed Protestantism; the southern provinces remain Catholic.

The development of the Reformation in many ways parallels developments in other regions of central Europe: Lutheran and Anabaptist heresies followed by executions – more than 1,300 executions by 1566, and more than in any other region. Charles V is working hard to contain the heretics.

Nevertheless, in the Netherlands Reformed Protestantism continues to increase; Charles cedes control of the Low Countries to his son, Philip II, king of Spain. Nobles petition for a softening of anti-heresy laws; the Spanish king sharply rebuffs them, saying he would rather lose all his lands than rule over heretics.

So whenever a king feels their authority threatened, the normal reaction is to reject all appeals to opening that door for freedom. Sometimes, depending on the tenacity of the culture, or of certain underground leaders in society, revolt surges:

Be careful what you wish for, I guess: In April 1566, three-hundred armed nobles ride into Brussels and present Margaret, the king’s regent, with the Compromise of the Nobility – with a demand, backed by arms, of reducing the anti-heresy laws. Margaret has no choice but to relent; in the wake, Calvinism explodes and denunciation of Catholic idolatry and Spanish tyranny boil over.

So when you or your tribe gets the power that others abused, what is the tendency? Revenge …

Monasteries attacked and destroyed, the start of what we now know as the Eighty Years’ War. Philip sends an army of more than 10,000 men, headed by the Duke of Alva: trials of more than 12,000 people take place; 9,000 are deprived of property; more than 1,000 are executed. New taxes are imposed, provoking Calvinists and Catholics alike.

Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction …

Dutch Calvinist pirates begin seizing coastal towns, eventually taking all major cities in the province except Amsterdam. They drive out the priests and kill over 130 of them. Philip can little afford the cost of wars against the Calvinists in the north while at the same time battling the Ottoman Turks. Troops in the Low Countries go unpaid, so they mutiny – sacking Antwerp, killing 8,000 and destroying more than 1,000 homes. What a mess.

Independence is finally achieved:

The Dutch Republic is formalized in 1581; the southern provinces (essentially Belgium) go their own way.

.. but all is not yet well. There is still Catholics now under Calvinist leaders and there is always a chasm it seems with collectivism tendencies:

Yet the conflicts continue:

“In the judgement of some, Catholicism under Spanish control is better than the violent aggression wrought by militant Calvinists.”

The fighting continues on and off until 1648 with more bloodshed and more refugees. This is resolved along with resolution of the Thirty Years’ War in the Peace of Westphalia.

In the end, the Dutch Republic and the Spanish Netherlands are the same thing only different. The Dutch choose a different path politically:

In the Dutch Republic there is no state church, as there are in France, Spain, England, German Lutheran territories, Scandinavian countries, or the Reformed Protestant territories of the Holy Roman Empire.

People in the Republic do not have to belong to a particular religion; while there is a state-supported church, only a small minority of the population belong to it. The Republic becomes a haven for religious groups of all sorts, and especially in Amsterdam political authorities are relatively tolerant…

“…allowing almost anyone to believe and worship together however they wish, provided they worship behind the closed doors of “hidden churches” and remain politically obedient.”

As with all politics, there is NEVER a live and let live mentality. Whenever power is achieved in a culture or society, there will never be a willingness to give away that power. This is a very broken world, and government/politics is part of that brokenness (from this article):

Even the worst features of the statist reality, Hayek showed, “are not accidental byproducts” but phenomena that are part and parcel of statism itself. He argued with great insightfulness that “the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful” in any society in which government is seen as the answer to most problems. They are precisely the kind of people who elevate power over persuasion, force over cooperation. Government, possessing by definition a legal and political monopoly of the use of force, attracts them just as surely as dung draws flies. Ultimately, it is the apparatus of government that allows them to wreak their havoc on the rest of us.

We will forever experience havoc in this world from the very entity that so many put their faith and trust in, not God, but government.

So very sick and so very sad that the masses will never awake to this truth.

-SF1

While Fathers are Very Important to Sons, Mothers in the Absence of Fathers Can Help Mold a Young Man’s Character

By design, I contend, our Creator designed us to be raised for a time in a home with both a father and a mother. In a broken world, this is not always achievable no matter how hard we might try as death, divorce and estrangement can all drive a wedge in a family. Sometimes the fallout, both bad and good might not be known for years or even decades. I also contend, that God can redeem all this and then some!

In reading a literature piece from 1877 I am amazed that both George Washington and Robert E. Lee lost their fathers at about age 11. For the purposes of this post, I will focus on the life that Robert E. Lee lived, his relationship with his mother and eventually his wife that shows the grace of God through providing a man who could be both tough and loving in every situation that this broken world threw at him.

The foundation for Robert’s life came in part from the following, couple this with his own free will and willingness to decide in his own mind what his character’s pillars would reside on, his life is a testament to what God can reveal about himself through just one individual.

Having read a majority of Robert E. Lee’s personal correspondence from his time in the Mexican War to that of his duties out West and eventually when he was a General in the Confederate States of America, I have only admiration as to the humble and Christian nature this man had in the extremes that life had to offer.

The following is a great resource (no longer free on Amazon probably due to the Political Correctness Movement) for understanding Robert E. Lee’s character (as well as Stonewall Jackson’s in later chapters):

This piece then goes on to assess:

.. the character of those women with whom General Lee was associated in the ties of family consanguinity, who, doubtless, had their share in moulding his character, most certainly in promoting his happiness.

Happiness. That word. Some believe money, fame or fortune will lead one to happiness, but just wait until you see what it was for Robert E. Lee:

The maiden name of General Lee’s mother, to whom he was accustomed to say he ‘owed everything’, was Anne Hill Carter, and she was a daughter of that branch of the well-known Virginia family of Carters residing at Shirley, a scat of old-time splendor and hospitality, on the James river.

Lee’s mother was born into a wealthy family .. and had quite an education, not in a boarding school, but in life and all that was brought her way:

In summer, an open-handed hospitality brought such an abundance of company to their homes, that the young people found little occasion for seeking amusement in places of dissipation and pleasure. And in the long winter months, the reading of English classical authors, foreign periodicals, new books, the study of music, etc., laid the foundation for thorough and practical education, such as is not always supplied in the famous boarding-school of to-day. No more skilled housekeepers, faithful nurses, and pleasant companions, were to be found than the Virginia matrons and maids of that day. Such was the home of Anne Carter, who became the second wife of that Henry Lee of the Revolutionary war, so well known under the sobriquet of ‘Light Horse Harry’

Marriage then removed her from this foundational environment as she sought to raise a family of her own:

For some years after their marriage they resided at Stratford, in Westmoreland county, Va., the old seat of the Lee family, and a most charming residence, situated on the banks of the Potomac. Here their illustrious son Robert Edward was born, January 19th, 1807, in the same chamber where two signers of the Declaration of Independence had first seen the light—Richard Henry and Francis Lightfoot Lee.

Within a few years, some tough circumstances came about:

When his son Robert, however, was only four years old, General Henry Lee moved to Alexandria, that his children might enjoy greater advantages of education. But in a few years his health failed, and, after sustaining a severe injury in endeavoring to quell a riot in Baltimore, in 1814, he continued rapidly to grow worse. In a vain attempt to recover his strength he repaired to the West Indies, hoping for beneficial effects from the change of climate; leaving his wife, also an invalid, in charge of their children, with the exception of the eldest son, Charles Carter Lee, who was absent from home, going through a collegiate course at Cambridge. In his correspondence, the husband showed that he had perfect confidence in the guardianship to which he had committed his sons as well as daughters. In one place he thus speaks of his wife and youngest son: ‘Robert, who was always a good boy, will be confirmed in his happy turn of mind by his ever watchful and affectionate mother’.

So with the father away in the West Indies attempting recuperation, and Lee’s mother, an invalid needing care, this all fell on young Robert.

We are told by one who knew Mrs. Lee intimately, that ‘she inculcated upon her children, by precept and example, the difficult duties of self-denial and self-control, as well as the strictest economy in all financial concerns’. This is the more remarkable, as we have seen she had been reared in the lap of wealth, and been used to living in style and elegance.

Lee’s mother, born into wealth, was able to be humble in this circumstance of life, and was quite a role model to her young son.

General Henry Lee was never to be reunited to his family, but died on his way home to the United States, in 1818, on Cumberland Island, near St. Mary’s, Georgia. Speaking of Mrs. Lee at this period, Miss Emily V. Mason writes:—’ This good mother was a great invalid; one of her daughters was delicate, and many years absent in Philadelphia, under the care of physicians. The oldest son, Carter, was at Cambridge; Sidney Smith was in the navy, and the other daughter was too young to be of much aid in household matters. So Robert was the housekeeper, carried the keys, attended to the marketing, managed all the out-door business, and took care of his mother’s horses. At the hour when the other school-boys went to play, he hurried home to order his mother’s drive, and would then be seen carrying her in his arms to the carriage, and arranging her cushions with the gentleness of an experienced nurse. . . .

Awwww .. how tender that Robert would be the one to help his mother through this difficult time. Oh how this helped to form his character as it could either have him grow more resentful or have him learn to self-sacrifice as he served.

When he left her to go to West Point, his mother was heard to say:—” How can I live without Eobert? He is both son and daughter to me”.’

General Lee always preserved a tender recollection of those scenes of his childhood and youth. …

Note that his response to these years as a servant for his mother, he still cherished that time. How honorable and noble is that?

For a long series of years Mrs. Lee was a sufferer, and, being left a widow in reduced circumstances, cumbered with the care of children, her trials must have been of a complicated nature. Yet she seems not only to have submitted with uncomplaining gentleness to the hardships of her lot, and not only to have risen superior to her own trials, but also to have sustained and cheered all about her. Her sick-room was airy and bright; all its arrangements were conducive to cheerfulness and comfort; the invalid, tall and stately in form, with finely cut features, added to these marks of a born gentlewoman a saintliness and purity of expression, which made still more beautiful her naturally lovely countenance. Her declining days were cheered by the most tender nursing on the part of her children, especially Robert, who, after graduating at West Point, devoted himself most tenderly to his mother, of whose fostering care and judicious counsels he was so soon to be deprived.

It seems that Lee’s mother also modeled a cheerfulness in the midst of pain and financial worry without her husband leading the family. The fact that Lee returned to his mother after West Point is quite a testament to his character!

Yet, it seems that this experience of his youth made him the perfect fit for his wife, Mary Randolph Curtis, who was described after her death:

Of Mrs. Lee it may be truly said, that she was worthy to grace the home and cheer the eventful life of this king of men. Though rendered by sickness incapable of walking, and never free from pain, she bore her sufferings with Christian cheerfulness, and always seemed contented and happy.

.. and after they as a family lost the Curtis mansion at Arlington (current site of Arlington National Cemetery):

No one ever heard vain words of lament, anger, or revenge pass her lips. In meekness she bowed to this sorrow as to a dispensation of Providence; in the silence of a true magnanimity she quietly laid this sacrifice beside many heavier ones upon the altar of country, and unmurmuringly, even cheerfully, accepted her lot among the reprobated ‘refugees’ of her stricken laud.

Furthermore, the character of Lee’s wife can be seen once again here:

When, after the war, General Lee lived upon a moderate salary, the compensation for his yearly labors as president of Washington and Lee University, the authorities of the college, who were so gratefully reaping the benefits of those labors, voted him a new and handsome residence as a gift, the General declined most positively to accept the gift, and would only reside in the new mansion which they persisted in rearing for him, on condition that it should remain college-property, and be called ‘The President’s House’, and reserved for future incumbents of the chair.

All unknown to himself and to his family, the board of trustees deeded the property to Mrs. Lee. When, after his death, the fact was delicately communicated to her, in order that she might know that the affliction of leaving her comfortable, pleasant home was not to be superadded to the irreparable one she had just experienced, and that, moreover, an annuity of $3000 per annum was hers for life, with the same high-mindedness as her husband had shown, she gracefully, but politely, declined to accept the annuity so generously proffered her, the house, or in anywise to tax the funds of the college for her support.

Founded as the institution had been by Washington, and fostered into a sudden prosperity beneath her husband’s rule, surely Mary Custis Lee might have accepted these offers with dignity; but she did not think so; and who can fail to admire the lofty self-respect and uprightness of soul which dictated the refusal of that which would have softened for her the asperities of life?

After Lee’s death, his wife would actually care for their own daughter:

After General Lee’s death, in 1870, his widow grew rapidly more infirm; yet still her fingers, stiff though they were with rheumatism, were employed mainly in a work of piety and love —her object being to aid in completing the memorial chapel which was to commemorate her noble husband’s deeds and the love borne him by the people.

Mrs. Lee seemed to find a sad, sweet solace for her grief in tinting the photographs of General Lee and herself, the proceeds of their sale to be used for the benefit of the chapel fund. It was sad to see almost a fevered glow flush her pallid cheek, as she would go on with her task, despite pain, weariness and soul-sickening grief. And another proof she gave, even then, of the modesty and humility of her character, in the low estimate she made of the value of this work; although those who are now fortunate enough to own them, regard them as inestimable mementoes, to be treasured with sacred care.

But, her labors were soon to cease. In the fall of 1873, her lovely daughter Agnes — the sweet and congenial sharer of her every fortune — sickened unto death. Day after day the agonized mother was moved, in her invalid’s chair, to her daughter’s bedside, her only comfort seeming to be in clasping the hand of the sweet sufferer, or gazing with fondest grief upon her loved and lovely form. Often too she was seen to be wrestling in prayer, that the word of healing might yet be spoken. But when finally the stroke of death came, the strength of the mourner gave way, and she was lifted to a bed from which she never arose.

Nature seemed to have no power to rally from the shock, and in a few weeks more, Mary Custis Lee was released from the pains and sorrows of this mortal life, and admitted to the dear companionship of her loved ones, who had ‘but gone before’. The whole Southern people grieved for her loss; and, as when General Lee died, the fountains of their grief for the disastrous close of the war seemed to open afresh, and from one end of the land to the other was heard the voice of mourning.

A mother’s love touches so many, and endures all things, until they return Home to a place where there are no tears.

-SF1

You Know You Are Only a Tax Slave – When Government Only Sees the (Selective) Producer’s Side in Economics

All the talk from US President on tariffs lately and how China ripped the US off on $5B worth of trade yada, yada, yada. I honestly felt like puking. Here is this reality TV star .. errr I mean president of the USA totally falling for the whole “trade deficit” economic term made popular every now and then to distract citizens (direct tax slaves) from what is really going on.

One would think that twelve years (and more in many cases) of public education would have introduced kids and young adults to the realities of economics, but you must understand that this is “government” education. Need I say more?

I am so glad that Justin Amash (Republican Representitive – MI) called out Pres. Trump on this aversion of his tariff war and his protectionist tendencies and their unintended consequences:

Why is the president of the US, philosophically, the “people’s choice” (part of the balancing attribute of this “experiment” to tweak “representative government” of the executive, legislative and judicial branches), totally all in on making sure that certain producers in the US are protected from foreign competition?

Well, truth be known, there is and has been a consistent propensity since the nation’s birth toward having the general government (as it was called back in 1787 when the coup de’tat that jettisoned the Articles of Confederation and adopted the Constitution in secret) building protective bridges with the republics budding industries (like railroad, steel manufacturing, canal building, etc).

The Whig party from the early 19th century was all about the big business – general government “partnership” (dysfunctional co-dependency) that utilized tariff income, mainly from the southern ports to fund canal projects in the north and subsidize the steel industry since it was new and vulnerable to foreign competition. Abraham was big into this mercantilism philosophy that continued to grow (imagine a government program growing like a cancer) and demand more and more tariff revenue that led to the “Tariff of Abominations” in the 1828 that South Carolina almost decided NOT to pay this tariff:

It set a 38% tax on 92% of all imported goods. Industries in the northern United States were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods; the major goal of the tariff was to protect these industries by taxing those goods. The South, however, was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce, and indirectly because reducing the exportation of British goods to the U.S. made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South.

One would think that especially our political leaders would want to learn from history, but in fact, they want short term political bonds with big business to secure funding for the next political election season. By definition, a democracy (which this republic has become) is never interested in long term consequences to the decisions made, it is almost as bad as full on Marxism, socialism and communism in the way it treats future generations of a nation/region.

Last year when Pres. Trump first issues this threat of a tariff increase, Martin Armstrong (of Armstrong Economics) shed some truth on the matter:

The big problem is that Trump FAILS to understand how the economy truly functions. Imposing tariffs on foreign imports because they can produce something more efficiently is NOT protecting American jobs – its is imposing higher costs on the American public.

If America cannot compete against foreign steel and aluminum, the answer is not tariffs, but TAX REFORM and UNION REFORM. If unions fail to understand that demanding higher wages in an UN-competitive manner will only lead to the loss of jobs, then end result cannot be prevented by tariffs.

Once upon a time, New York City was the largest port in the United States. Because of unions and outrageous demands, little by little they killed their own jobs. Shipping moved to New Jersey, Philadelphia, and Virginia. What used to be a viable industry today is just a shadow of what it once was. No matter what the field, everything is subject to competition. Imposing tariffs is simply subsidizing overpaid jobs and higher taxes.

Another popular independent media personality, Pete Raymond, also pointed out to Pres. Trump that 150 years ago, Bastiat had already settled this issue:

What is hilarious is that even Bastiat in 1845 when he wrote this piece, (called “Candlestick Makers’ Petition” directed at the French Parliament) said:

We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade. We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy.

Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?

Even in 1845 (and in 1828) there were plenty of books, musty books, on shelves unused and unread by government officials. The same holds true today, the idiots are elected while the wise refuse to wield power, the ugly and self-serving political type.

I do hope that some of you are aware of the Candlestick Makers’ Petition as Frederic Bastiat had a way in his short life to make economics simple enough that even a politician could understand. A teaser clip is below. Enjoy Mother’s Day celebrations today!

-SF1

You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.

We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your — what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice — your practice without theory and without principle.

We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun …

Priceless!

From Clan to State to Empire: Why Constant War? -and- What is the Antidote?

Reflecting on the “progress” of man towards ordering things in this world, it is of no surprise to me the thought of “bigger is better”. Even reflecting on the rise of the Hebrew people from nomads to being slaves in Egypt, and from there to the “Promised Land” west of the Jordan River and then being ruled by judges and eventually a king, you can see this is a very human trait.

The transition toward wanting a king is not something that the Hebrew’s God wanted for them, but it was allowed, with a warning. You see, earthly kings have kingdoms, which inherently need resources, taxes and young men to supply military might for both defense and offense operations. The list goes on and on as to the drain on society, communities and families to support a kingdom let alone an empire.

I think too of the struggle in the late 1700s when American colonists, while appreciating what the British Empire had done to facilitate their ability to immigrate to such a place as America, and supplied protection from those native to this land, they had however, grown resentful at the way their “parents” were treating them, almost like there was an expectation of independence not unlike what happens to humans when the are in their mid to late teens! In this case, many if not most did not want a king after kicking out the British, but some painted the road ahead with fear so as to make many desire the safety that a king, a central state, can supply.

In both of these situations, you have a taxing authority promising protection. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe points out:

A tax-funded protection agency is a contradiction in terms and will lead to ever more taxes and less protection.

One only has to look around today to see the end result of the belief that the state could be counted on to provide safety while taxing its citizens for that safety. Not only do we see the US Empire drone bombing “terrorists” (their claim is that every death is indeed a terrorist death), but also promoting regime change in countries around the globe that have nothing to do with keeping Americans safe. From the lies that launched the invasion of Iraq to the lies that led to epic cultural destruction in Libya, attempted destruction in Syria and desired destruction in Venezuela and Iran, the empire seems determined to start a war with someone. Trade wars and sanctions with Russia and China also indicate that the US Empire is itching for a fight.

But why?

Unknown to most Americans is the fact that a series of macro-economic shifts have happened over the course of this nation’s life that seem to be at the core of the angst this country’s leaders and elites feel at this time.

Remember the phrase “follow the money”? Well, it is pretty prophetic that not only did the Bible both in the Old and New Testament state that the love of money is the root of all evil, but that an inherent distrust of our provision and safety in our Creator fuels this. If there is any entity that is the furthest from God is that of the state. The state is actually the antithesis of a loving father, it is force at its core and “war is the health of the state” – ( Randolph Bourne) is its motto.

Today’s Lew Rockwell site provides a writer by the name of L. Reichard White who is willing to identify the “whys” of this latest round of desired wars. I hope to follow up with a series of  posts that go back through history and link America’s coups and wars to show how each one was premised on a lie and historically have been altered to show that these were moral victories for the state when in fact:

The sheer number of people killed by states in the twentieth century—up to 100 million, with more killed in peacetime “social reconstruction” than in wars—makes one suspect that state-provided security is extremely expensive in all respects and that meaningful alternatives have been overlooked.

So on to today’s revelation about the ways of the state and the root issue we are facing here in the 21st century, the constant wars and then some thoughts towards future alternatives.

After walking through some of the most recent “crazy” the the US Empire’s foreign policy seems to have taken since 9/11 and even before, the author states:

With all these U.S. Government interventions, at least 198 of them remember — and sanctions — it’s tempting to conclude there is no rational reason and “we” screw with other folks purely on whim, whimsey, and maybe as a hobby.

But sometimes, maybe there’s a method to this madness. And if so, it often does involve oil, just not quite the way most left-coasters think.

Oil, seems to be a common denominator. But if so, why didn’t the US occupy Libya and keep the oil? Why didn’t the US occupy Iraq and keep the oil? It just doesn’t add up. The author continues:

… because of a 1974 agreement cobbled together by the Nixon administration between the U.S. and Saudis, nearly all oil trade in the world ended up requiring U.S. dollars…

Understand that pre-1974, the US primarily used a central bank to fund its wars across the globe, and unlike your history book says, WWI (joined by the US only a few years after establishing a central bank) and WWII were not actually started by Germany, it has been only covered up that way by “Fake History” (a cousin to “Fake News”)

With a national debt of over $22T these days and over $200T of unfunded liabilities, the US government wants to stabilize and control the future, but the railroad tracks are leading to a gorge that has no bridge yet.

Not coincidentally, this [1974 action] was just three years after Nixon, attempting to finish replacing the gold standard with the U.S. paper-dollar standard, closed the gold window and thus threatened to throw the world economy into chaos. This explains a lot more than most folks realize.

Remember the “petro dollar?” Well, thanks to the Saudi/U.S. established oil-for-dollars tradition, the Brits, Germans, Japanese — in fact just about everyone — had to keep dollars on hand to pay for their oil imports.

And the oil sellers also ended up with a lot of dollars. And so did the countries they bought stuff from. And the dollar tradition spread to trade in other commodities as well. That meant that a large aggregate of U.S. dollars stayed overseas and didn’t return to the U.S.

Econ 301 is needed to understand what this means. Mr White does a good job:

Experts estimate that “majority of cash … outside the United States” is as much as 80% of the U.S. dollars in circulation. All that money overseas has a lot to do with the fact that everyone has to pay for oil, etc., with dollars.

As Case Sprenkle of the University of Illinois puts it, “Insofar as the money remains abroad and is not used to purchase goods or services from the country that printed it, it serves as an interest-free loan from poor countries to the rich.”

That’s mostly how Uncle Sam is able to run-up such huge budget deficits without causing inflation.

At this point, it will become clear to any student of history, that the actions of the US Empire since the 1953 assassination of the democratically elected president of Iran after he threatened to nationalize his nation’s oil to the most recent effort by Venezuela, sanctions, intervention, regime change and if necessary, outright war itself are the only tools the US Empire has at this point of time to get out of the hole it dug itself.

… what happens if people overseas stop using the dollar — and discover the only place they can spend it now is back here in the good ole’ U.S. of A.?

What would happen if the Saudi Arabians said they didn’t want to be paid [for oil] in dollars anymore, but wanted instead, to be paid, say in yen. There would be inflation that would make the 15 to 20 percent inflation in the early 80’s look good. —Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NEW MEXICO, C-SPAN II, 18 May 1995 ~12:33:55 PM

Unfortunately, selling oil for something other than U.S. dollars isn’t the only thing threatening the paper-standard. It’s also become the norm for governments and central banks to stockpile U.S. Treasuries to support their own currencies.

So, if a country reduces its stock-pile of U.S. Treasuries, either by selling them off or no longer rolling them over when they reach maturity — and replaces them with something else, as in the past, gold perhaps — this also threatens the U.S. dollar paper-standard.

The problem is, the paper-standard is mostly psychological. It’s literally a con — that is, confidence — game and when the confidence evaporates, game over.

And it’s very difficult to enforce confidence, no matter how many aircraft carriers, etc. you deploy. Or to predict when the confidence will implode.

Confidence is already waning on the USD Petro Dollar’s use, we know that North Korea does not participate, neither does Cuba, but lately, Venezuela, Iran, Russia and even Saudi Arabia favor de-dollarization in the oil markets, and this is huge:

I agree with Mr. White when he says:

Could that threat [Saudi Arabia’s look at USD de-dollarization] be why Mr. Trump vetoed Congress’ first attempt in 70 years to control unconstitutional U.S. war involvement by ending support for the Saudi-led murder of the men, women and children in Yemen?

What a tangled web an empire weaves. In desperation, the empire struggles to stay relevant and keep the bubble economic facade intact. Gold-based currency was a more honest way to run a nation, but quick money seems to be the way empires go.

.. killing more men, women and children is a classic result of the the paper-standard. As Ferdinand Lips explains so well, compared to the gold standard, the paper-standard makes financing wars easy and so they happen more often, are longer, stronger, and kill more innocent men, women and children.

As some folks like to put it, “The U.S. dollar used to be supported by gold, now it’s supported by aircraft carriers, B-52s and killer drones.”

I think we can safely add that it’s also supported by election meddling, coup, regime change, assassination, sanctions, invasion, and fake undeclared war. Perhaps, then, a more accurate title for this piece would be “Intervention and the Paper Standard.”

Okay then, enough depressing talk, and for those who have stayed along for this journey, what, if any, antidote is there for such a huge situation?

there’s a subtle but insidious problem with the way Trump and the U.S. Deep State are chronically implementing “All options are on the table” Games Theory. Originally a U.S. invention, Games Theory is based on poker.

The problem with poker — and BTW mercantilism as well — is that, unlike voluntary exchange in unhampered markets, it’s a zero-sum game. If you’re in a game with someone who thinks they’re playing poker, someone wins and someone loses — and they intend to make sure you’re the loser.

Unhampered markets on the other hand — and other forms of normal co-operation — are, in the long run, nearly always win-win propositions. As long as they stay unhampered — and normal.

Markets, UNHAMPERED is the key.  How can markets be “unhampered”? (Remember the Hebrews when their leadership was judges, wise men who provided justice in a society or community, or the American colonists that homesteaded on acres of trees and developed ways so that they could bring value to their communities out of sight of any British flag or British noble?)

The state is a cancer for so many things in our world. I believe the only saving grace might be for the average human (not just in America, but globally) to understand the state for what is actually is. The average human needs to know “the gun in the room”.

Anarchy, the absence of rulers (not natural rules), is probably the only healthy path forward. One of the best things I have see so far this year is this 52 minute interview on Jeff Berwick’s Anarchast page that supplies a double dose of reality into the reality of 2019, the consideration of both anarchy and Jesus as a possible path forward. I am not talking chaos and religion here, so it might be good to view this YouTube so you can understand both of these options without accepting them:

Anarchast About:

Anarchast is your home for Anarchy Podcasts on the internet

To us, Anarchy means freedom. The desire to live without a violent, coercive State. Anarchy is peace, love and prosperity. Free markets. And, power to the people.

Anarchist.  Libertarian.  Freedom fighter against mankinds two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks.

Jeff is the Chief Editor of The Dollar Vigilante, a newsletter focused on investments and expatriation information to survive the coming collapse of the US dollar based financial system.

Jeff is also a contributing editor at many of the world’s largest libertarian, financial and precious metals related websites including LewRockwell.com, The Daily Reckoning, Whiskey and Gunpowder, Kitco, Gold-Eagle, Safehaven.com, Market Oracle and is a speaker at many of the world’s most important hard-money investment and freedom conferences including Libertopia, the San Francisco & New York Hard Assets Show, the PDAC held in Toronto, the Silver Summit and all the Cambridge Houseconferences in Vancouver, Calgary,

So remember, money is not the root of all evil, the love of money is. If your faith is in money and/or government, you are going to have a bad day.

I hope to post more on what the future might hold as far as alternatives to the state, especially the “in your face” state that we are seeing in the USA that used to be restricted to the USSR, Communist China and East Germany for a few decades.

Enjoy your weekend y’all!

-SF1

15-28MAY1781: South Carolina is able to Expel British/Tory Forces from Key Strongholds

From my last post about South Carolina’s effort in MAY1781 to leave the British Empire for good I said:

… seems that the tide is turning into a flood, and mid-May 1781 will come more changes as this internal civil war rages on in South Carolina between Tories and Whigs, British regulars and Continentals and everyone else caught in between …

The flood keeps surging in mid-May as more good news is received that the British force at Orangeburg fell to Sumter and Lt. Col. Henry Lee moved to Fort Granby and accepted surrender of British forces there on May 15th.

Seems the typical hot-headed “Gamecock”, Brig. Gen. Thomas Sumter was ticked that HE was not allowed to accept the surrender on the siege he had started two weeks before.  Sumter threatened resignation but ended up getting munitions and slaves to pay his men via “Sumter’s Law”.  Greene also at this time ensured that Sumter was top dog and could order Marion where he needed him.

Continental leader Maj. Gen. Nathaniel Greene and his forces continued on to Ninety-Six where the last inland detachment of British were entrenched.  Lt. Col. Henry Lee is dispatched 16MAY to join Brig. Gen. Andrew Pickens and to place a seige on Augusta, Georgia and to work with militia leader Elijah Clarke in taking Fort Galphin on May 21st then on to assist the militia leader Brig. Gen. Andrew Pickens in taking out smaller forts around that key city.

In the meantime, on 19MAY, Marion sends news to Greene that Francis, Lord Rawdon is still at Moncks Corner and GeorgeTown is now garrisoned by only ~80 men, including Redcoats and Loyalists. Marion requests approval to go take Georgetown.

On 26MAY, Marion receives a conditional “yes” (as long as Sumter would not be exposed and Rawdon did not move on Ninety-Six) and moved on Georgetown and laid siege, learning from Fort Watson and Fort Motte experiences.  Again he was without cannon but that did not keep him from using black painted peeled logs!

The British leadership had already been given permission to exit should they be pressed and so on the same day the siege started (28MAY) the British spiked their cannons, boarded their ships and left the city. These forced lingered safely in the bay a few days (until 11JUN1781 actually) and then sailed for CharlesTown.

With the occupation of GeorgeTown, Brig. Gen. Marion is able to replenish his wardrobe and fit himself out in a new suit of ‘regimentals’. He is then ordered by Maj. Gen. Nathanael Greene to assist with the next siege attempt, that of Ninety-Six, so he leaves a small force in Georgetown under the command of Lt. Col. Peter Horry and marches away with the captured British supplies.

His militia, seeing that the job in GeorgeTown is finished, quietly go back to their homes. Frustrated by the fluidity of volunteer militia, Brig. Gen. Marion begins gathering a new militia to harass Francis Lord Rawdon on his way to Ninety-Six.

Ninety-Six lay in the middle of Tory country and so a siege was tough sledding.  It actually should never had taken place except the orders from Rawdon to Cruger (commander at ’96) to leave Ninety-Six for Augusta was intercepted by the rebels and never delivered. The fortification was intense and artillery consisted of three three-pounders and 550 motivated soldiers knowing that this was the last significant outpost in the interior of South Carolina where once the British had over 30 strongholds and now only had a dozen mainly located near CharlesTown.

In addition to this difficulty, there was a rumor afloat that on about 02JUN1781, Col. Pasten Gould landed another 2,000 new British Regulars from Cork, Ireland at CharlesTown.

June 1781 would be a rough month in this seesaw set of events that can easily occur when an empire can land more troops at will from anywhere in the globe.

Stay tuned for what happens at Ninety-Six!

-SF1