In Praise of Caesar

I consider Napoleon, Fox, and Hamilton the three greatest men of our epoch, and if I were forced to decide between the three, I would give without hesitation the first place to Hamilton. – Talleyrand

Though his allegiance was to his legendary second choice, history has judged the wisest one to be he who was the first choice of Talleyrand. That which he anticipated from the work of Hamilton, work continued and fulfilled by Lincoln, Clay, and others, only to be abandoned after the New Deal, is the form of American Nationalism most worthy of the dedication of talented conservatives.

The empires of the two artillery officers destined to change the course of history, Napoleon I and Hamilton, were built by their respective founders through different methods. The method chosen from rise to fall by the Emperor of France was that which was forged by the millennia long tradition of the great conquerors who preceded him. The method adopted by the Caesar we come to praise, Alexander Hamilton, was one of his own invention. His vision of the American nation as one unified under a conservative federal government that would facilitate by its policies over capitalism and commerce; build great cities; develop advanced infrastructure; retain a powerful military; and nurture industry. The age in which his project was launched was the age of the industrial revolution. That revolution forced the statesmen of Hamilton’s era to answer the most important question of the last two centuries – what should be the relationship between state and economy? The respondent with the best answer would be granted the full benefits of the industrial revolution, a wrong one guaranteed second tier status or worse.

At the Constitutional Convention called to remedy the failures of the Articles of Convention, Hamilton as the leader of the American nationalists rose to answer the question of his age and spoke, “The federal government will be nationalist and that state will be charged with the facilitation of capitalism and industry”. His answer was the correct one as history has proven. He laid the economic and political foundation which turned America into the greatest power of all time. His nationalist message and example in government was the platform of his Federalist party; was refined into what became the American System of Henry Clay; and was saved from disunion by Lincoln. Lincoln’s victory over the Confederacy cleared the last remaining obstacle standing in the way of what would become from 1865 to 1932 the American Golden Age of Industry and Capitalism . That age witnessed an expansion of economic, industrial, and urbanization growth without equal, and its benefactors would do well to remember it as the Age of Hamilton because it was he who created its founding documents and policies.

Our cause is that of the conservative nationalism of Hamilton and Lincoln; invited to it is anyone with the caliber to make this cause their own. Over time facts will be laid out, questions answered, ideological errors dispelled, and conclusions made. Along the way will come adherents. Although we welcome white sympathizers (even simple, curious onlookers) of any kind, our message is primarily for talented and upright individuals who will, at first, see in our writings the truth in the great work of the Federalists – which later became the Republican party of Lincoln – and who will then adopt that work as their own. Libertarians, white Northerners of any white ethnicity, and all other white demographics that make up the upper class of the Republican party are invited. They are the descendants of the urban, capitalistic, cosmopolitan, merchant class elite which Hamilton envisioned as the natural governing aristocracy and whom were turned into a real governing class by Lincoln.

At this moment, few of you are prepared to adopt the savoir-fair Hamilton because you do not understand him, and need instruction in it. Tomorrow, the first lesson in the political philosophy of the Hamiltonian state will be made. More instructions are planned. They will be presented over time; an unavoidable necessity for a legacy with the scope and depth of Hamilton’s. His tradition is a complete tradition of politics, tested by history and proven true by its beneficent results.

For those of you who will become Hamiltonians – and we write with confidence that many of you are, but do not know it – today our work centers on describing what the legacy of Hamilton is, and where your political views will be once you have made the transition, after consideration, to Hamilton from whichever, at best flawed, or, more likely, failed, ideology of state you have now. We will also, in obedience with the infinite wisdom of Confucius, define our terms and divide our historical periods.

Our Hamiltonianism is without modifiers. There are no prefixes, subscripts, postscripts, integer constraints, slope intercepts, or qualifier of any kind.

There are synonyms to Hamiltonian – Federalist, Lincolnian, Old Structuralist (see our breakdown of historical periods near the end of this article). But otherwise we present to you Hamilton and Lincoln as they were, powdered wig and stove pipe hat, with neither tinsel nor obfuscation to cloud your understanding.

Our policies at the federal level are theirs and those of their successors. Simply, a conservative government driving conservative policies at the federal level.

Our project looks to emulate the Wild West capitalism of the roaring 20s, which has been wrongly labeled the high era Gilded Age but was in truth the Golden Age; urbanization; the facilitation of manufacturing and industry (tariffs and trade will be dealt with thoroughly in a future article, but not here); central banking, limited debt, and sound credit; federally supported scientific research; industrialization; an explicitly white demographic policy in the tradition of the Great Wave European migration and the settlement of the Western territories; a powerful military; advanced infrastructure; and a realist foreign policy.

On the American right, Hamiltonians have no legitimate competition. Elsewhere, whether mainstream or fringe, the records of those other factions are strewn with, at best, defensive holding patterns; more typically, abject failures. As of today you future Lincolnians adhere, if only weakly, to one of those numerous, failed versions of conservatism. As you learn, you will abandon your old politics and mold your new politics into the image of Hamilton and Lincoln.

Most mainstream Republicans are Jeffersonians fighting the left under the banner of states rights. This has failed to do anything but slow, not stop or reverse, the left because it is defensive.

Hamilton created the blueprint for how to create a nationalist conservative government that will go on offense. If you have Jeffersonian sympathies, we will show the art behind a conservative federal government.

Libertarianism – you have failed for reasons similar to the Jeffersonians: your focus on local rights has abandoned the offensive machinery in DC to the progressives. We do welcome your brainpower and we expect you to graduate from the flaws of Libertarianism to the robust, state guided, Capitalism of Hamilton once we’ve hit the right synaptic notes to win you over to the cause of the greatest statesman ever produced by New York.

And what a disadvantage those unsuitable notions you hold have placed you in. None of those failed variants so much as understands what nationalism is, a confusion inexcusable in light of how simple a history it is.

We will put this disorder of names to an end by defining it for you: In its broadest context, nationalism is the maintenance of the well-being of the state, regardless of type of government or demographic profile. From this angle, all types of conservatism are by definition nationalistic in some way or other.

But across specific times and contexts, the meaning of this definition becomes much more particular. In the early 19th century, nationalism meant state self-determination for European ethnicities living under monarchical and imperial regimes with pan-European populations.

(On an important side note, Hamiltonians do not consider pan-European states from the mid-19th century and prior in any way in the slightest to be comparable to the failures which are racially diverse nations).

Sovereigns of this era – like most European rulers stretching back to Greece, Rome, and after – were content to govern over a pan-European state so long as the land those subjects came with brought with it advantages to the realm. For a few decades nationalism was seen by a royalty, still holding to 18th century notions, as a destabilizing force and which should be opposed on grounds that it’s logic, carried through, would lead to the breakup of their pan-European empires. Their contemporary leftist adversaries, whose first rule is always destabilization, supported ethnic nationalism for the reasons Kings and Emperors then turned their back on it.

During his exile in London, the complaint of Prince Metternich, the last of the 18th century imperialists, about nationalism – a complaint he often made to his 19th century conservative protege, Benjamin Disraeli – that it was “a new-fangled idea”, captured the old royalist perspective.

From the mid-19th century to WWI, the attitude of monarchists changed . Old skepticism gave way to a careful embrace of, what might be termed, a royalist ethnic nationalism led by Bismarck, Garibaldi, and the Tsars of Russia. In their unified Germany, Italy, and Eastern Europe, and with the often full diplomatic support of Napoleon III and the British, they transitioned from the old royalist model of a loose confederation of aristocratic kingdoms, dukedoms, and city states, into centralized nation states of particular European ethnic heritage, military expansionism, the subjugation of different European ethnicities and their resources into a state of suzerainty, and industrialization.

The rule of nationalist sovereigns was ended by the Great War. With the aristocracy lacking the credibility to govern, the cause of nationalism, militarism, and strip-mining colonization was taken up by populist fascists of various kinds. The second military catastrophe which ensued destroyed nationalism as a credible ideology up to the present day.

I have written here a summary of the history of European nationalism. This history does not quite relate to American nationalism as founded by the most successful nationalists of both the 19th and 20th centuries, Hamilton and Lincoln. To Lincoln especially, divisions between Americans of differing European ethnicities and subgroups were secondary divisions of race. Because America has no history of serious conflict between white subgroups, and because our military competitors in the Western Hemisphere have been minor players, European ethnic nationalism has little to nothing to teach about what form American nationalism should take. Indeed, modern Western European nationalists cannot be equated to any previous nationalists because they are not interested in military aggression against other European states (and, anyway, could not afford the costs if they did). Nor do they seek colonization of their European neighbors, or mind the presence of different European ethnic groups within their borders.

After reading this, you should understand the reason why current discussions of nationalism, cases both for and against, are more than worthless as a consequence of distinct nationalisms being referred to in an incoherent jumble with all of the others. Except when discussed by we enlightened Hamiltonians.

The fact that the mainstream and fringe American right does not so much as have a basic grasp of nationalism is yet another reason in a long list that explains their failures.

As Hamiltonians in training, we emphasize to you that we are following the nationalism of Abraham Lincoln.

Our views on race are those of Lincoln. Lincoln’s firm view – which would be heartily seconded by all of the founding fathers – that his Republic is, and can prosper only as, a white Republic, is to us sufficient justification for a pan-European demographic policy across North America, with no need of additional support from any other authority but Lincoln.

We reject any definition of Lincoln’s sentiments in this regard as racism, as an ‘ism’ implies an ideology. To Lincoln the European peoples, assimilated into an Anglo-Saxon cultural framework, are a prerequisite to the success of the American nation, and is therefore no ideology.

The policy of Hamiltonians towards Jews is, naturally and simply, that of Hamilton. The high opinion he held of Jews in his youth was maintained for his entire life. The treatment of Jews by his successors from Clay, Lincoln, and onwards was not substantially differently from that of other whites. Hamiltonian nationalists will follow their example and include as many Jews as possible; generally support Jewish interests, which normally overlap closely with the interests of the West, wherever feasible and reasonable; and exclude those who exclude Jews.

And it is only Lincolnian nationalism which can serve as the basis for a viable American nationalism.

A quote from Metternich (whose quotes will be shown to be even more substantive than Carlyle’s) is apt: When hearing the news Napoleon III had ascended to power in France, Metternich famously scoffed – Bonapartism without Bonaparte is false.

A rare case of Metternich in the wrong. While Napoleon III did not possess the genius and talent of Napoleon I, as a competent ruler who remains the finest French head of state since Waterloo, he did prove himself worthy of the family name and the opinion of Metternich wide off the mark.

He missed because the specific case of France under Napoleon III was Bonapartism with Bonaparte.

But his general point; Bonapartism requires a suitable Bonaparte; is correct regardless of how badly he misjudged that particular heir to the First French Empire.

Accepting as true that, Bonapartism without Bonaparte is false, how much more of an error is the long-standing one made by the American fringe right: Hitlerism without Hitler?

It is erroneous for countless reasons.

First, Hitlerian programming code cannot translate into American machine code because Hitlerian code is meant for the German nation (Metternich’s statement could be further modified to Bonapartism with Bonaparte outside of France is False). Secondly, there is no remotely plausible American Hitler in sight. And the followers this non-existent Hitler would need to man the panzer divisions of this non-existent movement, clearly does not exist either.

Lincolnian nationalism, on the other hand, is viable. The code base for it, courtesy of Hamilton, already exists in the Constitution. Granted, it is buried under layers and layers of Wilsonian malware. But dealing with the left will be left to separate posts.

Many on the fringe right will object ad say Hitler is the superior nationalist of state.

But why?

Putting aside for the moment any questions of morality, judging Nazism in pure terms of pure will-to-power militarism also forces us to conclude it was a failure since it was Lincoln who, by preserving the Union, paved the way for the industrialization which armed the future Arsenal of Democracy which slayed Hitler’s empire. In the great gun battle between the military industrial complexes of Hitler and Lincoln, it was Lincoln’s war machine that proved the fastest draw in the West. And Hitler had no shortage of guns, but outgunned he still was by patriarch Abraham.

Lincoln is not merely the greatest American president, he is the greatest nationalist statesmen of both the 19th and 20th centuries due to his victory over the Confederacy clearing the path for the full industrialization of the North American continent.

Putinism? Requires a Putin. In Russia.

In America, Putinists are not only without Putin, they would still have no Putinism with him if they tried to implement it here. Putinism with Putin in Russia? Plausible. But if you want to understand Putin and Putinism, I do recommend you follow Putin as he practices Putinism, not how his peanut gallery fan club in America imagines it through a haze of meth precursors in their mobile homes.

Now that I bring up political coding…. We have Metternich and his imperial code:
I found him in Fraser’s magazine, which was usually edited by Carlyle, while investigating Carlyle at the suggestion of Confucius. After I read that interview, I resolved to devote my energies to Metternich as Confucius did Carlyle.

Here, he will play the same role of co-writer that Carlyle played to Confucius.

We welcome his Excellency back. After a century and a half, well-rested, he enters stage right once more. But he is greater than Carlyle. While Carlyle was a commentator, Metternich was perhaps the greatest practitioner of conservatism of the 19th century.

When you have finished that interview, notice that I offer his volumes of diplomatic correspondence on the about page. His correspondence encapsulates his life’s work. By giving you an interview of him beforehand, we hope at least a few of you will learn from his correspondence now that you have a portrait of his character painted by a skeptical, interviewer.

Though we will refer often to Metternich, do not think we have come to install Hapsburg code into American hardware.

Whose inscription is this?  For now.  Hamilton’s. Render unto Hamilton what is Hamilton’s and unto Metternich what is Metternich’s.

We make use of the works of Metternich as a lense through which to view the shape of the political distribution. What is the right is an unavoidable question for the conservative because questions of conservatism necessarily involve of structure and combinations. He presents his structure of conservatism as brilliantly as he guided Europe through the longest peace in its history. The structure of 18th century imperialism, exemplified by Metternich, is not transferable to America. It is however, useful because he puts the nationalist conservatism of Hamilton and Lincoln in perspective.

If Hamilton was an imperial droid who uploaded swathes of royalist code into the Constitution, then Metternich is the code base from which Hamilton borrowed. We marvel at whatever Lord of the Sith mind trick Hamilton used to get such obviously monarchical ideas more than a fair hearing in Philadelphia. However that maneuver was pulled off, do read Metternich if only because as you see into his mind you will see too the mind of the sovereigns whose form of government oversaw most of the evolution of civilization, and dare I say more than a bit of Hamilton.

While Hamilton’s vision of government which has yielded so many benefits echoed monarchism and imperialism, Metternich was the authoritative champion of monarchy and imperialism. To understand Metternich is to understand many aspects of Hamilton.

Some brief points to Guide you as you read Metternich: First, always remember his imperialism is the imperialism of the 18th century and he adhered to those principles no matter what storms crossed the path of 19th century imperialism. I suggest you read Volume II first, then Volume I as its supplement.

In English, there are only V volumes. In French and German, there are VIII.

I have searched far and wide for the English translations of Volume VI, VII and VIII but have found nothing. I’m afraid it either does not exist or it was part of a limited edition print that may or may not be lost.

Volume I is his autobiography.

Volume II covers 1800 to 1815 – no explanation is needed for why it is deserving of your attention. Please be sure to read Volume I as a supplement to Volume II. The former provides important context around the events of 1809 to 1814 lacking in Volume II. I also recommend reading Volume II first before Volume I because the format of Volume II is closer to that of the diplomatic and personal correspondence by, and addressed to, Metternich seen in future volumes. Starting with Volume II will prepare you for all of the volumes that come after the second. If you choose to proceed to the rest of his works.

Most of you will stop at Volume I and Volume II. For those of you who proceed to version III to V, if you read only English, the amusing, if dangerous spectacle of Capo d’Istria awaits in Volume III. Volume IV sees the arrival of Metternich’s nemesis, Lord Canning. In the disturbing Volume V, watch and tremble before the danger posed by the Duc d’Orleans and Palmerston. And more.

Perhaps you think Metternich’s politics is too abstract in today’s context to be usable?

If Metternich is too theoretical, by all means dive into his theory of imperialism anyway. See where it takes you. It was, after all, those power analysis and design sessions with Confucius about Imperialism, and more than a little assist from the Leopard, which brought you this blog. Meditate on his wisdom while Metternich acts as your guide on your journey to the Emperor. Multiple Emperors, in fact.

We now offer to speakers of the French language the French translation of Volumes I to VIII of the letters of Prince Metternich.

His letters, I was informed, were written in a beautifully clear style, and his French letters especially were said to be masterpieces of perspicuity and elegance of expression.

A sample of those masterpieces:

DOCUMENTS REMONTAT A L’ÉPOQUE DE L’ENTRÉE DE METTERNICH AU SERVICE DE L’ÉTAT

(Fait à Vienne, le 2 novembre 1801., page 3)

A. La situation politique actuelle de l Europe considérée surtout par rapport à l’Autriche.

Les événements des onze dernières années étaient sans contredit de nature à changer radicalement les conditions politiques de l’Europe.

La Révolution française avec la forme républicaine qu’elle a imposée à une des monarchies les plus importantes; la ruine totale de l’indépendance de la Hollande: la réunion des Pays-Bas, de la rive gauche du Rhin, de la Savoie, d’une partie de la Suisse et de la Hollande à la France; d’autre part, le changement d’une constitution qui depuis des siècles faisait le bonheur de la Suisse; la création d’une nouvelle république démocratique formée de la plus grande partie de l’Italie supérieure ; le nouveau sort de Venise; le changement de souveraineté en Toscane: le partage de la Pologne; l’agrandissement extraordinaire de la Prusse par l’annexion des margraviats et par ses acquisitions en Pologne ; de plus, le monopole momentané de l’Angleterre par suite de la destruction des marines ennemies et de la conquéte de la plupart des colonies françaises, de beaucoup de colonies espagnoles et de toutes les possessions hollandaises; les vastes conquétes de la Grande-Bretagne aux Indes orientales et la ruine de la puissance de Tippo Saïb, si menaçante pour son influence sur ce pays; l’occupation de l’Egypte par les Français; le cap de Bonne-Espérance et Malte, les deux points les plus importants pour le commerce du monde, au pouvoir des Anglais qui en possédaient déjà le monopole; enfin les changements prochains qu’entraînera la paix de Lunéville : cette situation, qui est le résultat de la Révolution française et de la guerre générale qu’elle a provoquée, laisse loin derrière elle même les bouleversements amenés par les trois grandes guerres du siècle dernier, par la guerre de la succession d’Espagne qui assura la prépondérance française, par la guerre du Nord qui ouvrit à la Russie les portes de la politique européenne, et par la guerre engagée par la Prusse contie la Maison d’Autriche en 1740, qui eut pour conséquence la guerre de Sept ans.

To speakers of the German language, we, acting under the presumption that the clarity of thought of Prince Metternich is at least as comparable in Deutscher as en Français, here, also, is the German translation of Volumes I to VIII.

Take them and add them to their rightful place alongside your most prestigious literary canons.

Tomorrow, we proceed to Hamilton. To guide you through it, we outline the historical periods of America.

Our historical analysis sees American history divided into the following periods, divided by economics.

The four periods of America that will be referred to:

1) 18th Century America – AKA The Ancient Structure – 1776 t0 1860
2) Disputed Period – 1861-1865
3) 19th Century America – The Old Structure – AKA the Golden Age – 1865 to 1932 (This era was no fool’s gold age, and its zenith was the Golden Lincolnian Age, the roaring 20s)
4) 20th Century America – The New Structure – 1932 to present (If there was a Gilded Age, a Fool’s Gold Age, it was the 50s, which perhaps can be subdivided into 1945 up to Kennedy’s assassination. It qualifies as the Fool’s Gold era of fake prosperity because it had both prosperity and a Progressive welfare state. This supposed prosperity melted as soon as Western Europe and Japan regained their competitiveness in the 1960s and 1970s)

The progressives condemned the Golden Age even though if it hadn’t been for the that era and the industrial colossus created buring it, the progressives would have been the ones on trial at Nuremberg instead of the Nazis and Hitler would have had FDR swinging from a rope outside the Reichstag.

We will show you why it was Golden.

As for Europe,

European periods:

1) 17th Century – Protestant Reformation to the Peace of Westphalia
2) 18th Century – Westphalia to 1815
3) 19th Century – 1815 to 1914
4) 20th Century 1914 to present

American and European 18th and 19th centuries do not quite align together. American history is a bit odd because it America is the oldest of the modern Western states – we were founded at the cusp of the Industrial Revolution, our energies in our 18th century were entirely dedicated to a preparation for the 19th century of industry, which brought about the modern state. Europe was at a disadvantage here because they transitioned from 18th to 19th unsure of what to carry over from the past.

We also did not enter the 20th century until 1932, while Europe entered the 20th century in 1914. Whereas American society in the 1920s felt very much like it did in 1900, Europe in the 1920s, after Somme and Verdun, was a political and social basket case of self-doubt about their civilization and political anarchy, comparable to what America became in the wake of the Vietnam war. But worse.

We await the start of the politics of the 21st century. We anticipate the American 21st century will be begin with the collapse of the American Left and the triumph of Hamiltonian politics, but, since we do not ascribe to the false notion that history has ended, we caution that history has a mind of its own. If history appears absent to the observer, it was really just on coffee break. As even the most superb of coffee breaks must be followed by work, we expect history to resume operations.

Whenever it does, we Hamiltonians we will be ready to make 21st century the century of Hamilton and Lincoln just as we did the 19th.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “In Praise of Caesar”

  1. Metternich’s likely to be a more helpful spiritguide than Carlyle has been; Carlyle’s proposal is just “Find a Great Man and make HIM the boss!”, which isn’t very helpful at all.

    Like

  2. Nickbsteves thinks that “‘the American core’ is insecure power.” (BLM-Progressives and many NRxers and Altrightists have a lot in common, and in fact NRx and the Altright appear to have offered many Progressives a hip new way to hate America.) I take it that you think that the American core is awesome, and that the Hamiltonian spirit enables and/or augments the expression of this awesomeness.

    Like

  3. Lincoln was a monster. You know nothing,

    To justify the legacy of Hamilton I do have to argue in favor of the side of Lincoln’s Union because it was the Civil War that decided what economic program the country would follow for the subsequent seven decades. The article is moving along nicely. But it will not be ready by next week.

    The case for the Confederacy, once one understands what the actual position of Lincoln was, is quite weak. If there is a strong case for it, I’m sure you won’t be able to make it.

    Like

  4. Metternich’s likely to be a more helpful spiritguide than Carlyle has been; Carlyle’s proposal is just “Find a Great Man and make HIM the boss!”, which isn’t very helpful at all.

    Carlyle’s opinions were those of the second half of the 19th century, when, as I discussed above, Sovereign’s were centralizing their power into what became the modern state.

    Metternich was an advocate of the 18th century script where royal power was exercised through decentralized, local, aristocratic institutions. The absolutism of Louis XIV was the exception to the rule Metternich grew up with.

    Like

  5. I take it that you think that the American core is awesome, and that the Hamiltonian spirit enables and/or augments the expression of this awesomeness.

    It has been smothered underneath Progressive malware which has hijacked a federal government that was intended by Hamilton to carry out normal government functions. The relationship between Hamilton’s state and the New Deal is similar to that between Prussian militarism under Bismarck and Kaiser Bill and what it became under Hitler – in both cases the original notions were hijacked and warped far beyond what the original authors would have endorsed; with Hamilton’s state being even more unrecognizable to him than Hitler’s Germany would be to any of the founders of a united Germany.

    Like

  6. It qualifies as the Fool’s Gold era of fake prosperity because it had both prosperity and a Progressive welfare state. This supposed prosperity melted as soon as Western Europe and Japan regained their competitiveness in the 1960s and 1970s)

    I hear this often: the ”50s were only good because other industrial nations were prostrate.

    It seems to argue for whacking your competitors with a ball peen hammer on a regular basis.

    Like

  7. I hear this often: the ”50s were only good because other industrial nations were prostrate.

    What you hear is true.

    What you may not have previously heard was that the Gilded Age was the real Golden Age; the industrial base that won WWII was built during the cut throat capitalism best symbolized by the roaring ’20s; the same decade which the progressives have condemned since FDR began positioning himself for his White House run.

    It seems to argue for whacking your competitors with a ball peen hammer on a regular basis.

    But this can never be a routine strategy.

    It will backfire catastrophically if you lose because it means engaging most or all of the major economic powers who will enter the battlefield with formidable ball peen hammers of their own. And even if you emerge relatively unscathed, you have only a quarter century to enjoy the plunder until the factory base of your former enemies returns.

    The sustainable policy is to be capitalist as much and for as long as possible just as the North and Yankee settled territories were from the signing of the Constitution to the Civil War, and from the end of the war to the New Deal.

    Like

Comments are closed.