THIS
We need Trump to be Andrew Jackson, not Teddy Roosevelt.
Andrew Jackson was cheated out of the presidency in 1824 by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, and he fought his way back in a populist surge to be elected president in 1828. And as president, he crushed the Second Bank of the United States.
(Insert obligatory “not all his policies or every single thing about him” here...)
==========
And in the interest of correcting some misunderstandings of Andrew Jackson I see floating around here:
FAITH AND FREEDOM 1951-1960
The Root of Old Hickory
Murray N. Rothbard
Faith and Freedom, vol. 2, no. 9 (May 1951).
Tempestuous “Old Hickory” has been one of the great storm centers of historical controversy. The old-line historian, who flourished about the end of the nineteenth century, regarded Andrew Jackson with undisguised contempt. He considered Jackson an unwashed, wild-eyed radical who rode out of the Western hills to trample on sound finance, as embodied in the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson led his mob of poor Western farmer-debtors to the elimination of the Bank, because it represented the major bulwark against the inflation and paper money that they ardently desired. (Debtors always benefit by inflation, since they can repay their debts in “cheap” money, the purchasing-power of which has dwindled as compared to the time of the original loan). Jackson's opposition to protective tariffs was of a piece with his opposition to sound finance; both were motivated by the hostility of poor agrarians to rising industry and sound money.
This view of Jackson has now gone out of fashion and has been replaced by the New Historians with what they assert is an entirely different picture of the man and his role in American history. The New Historians, stung by the charges of their conservative opponents that the New Deal and its ideology represent a revolutionary break with the American past, have gone racing back into the history of this country to find predecessors and precedents. As a result, they have established a complete mythology of God-like heroes. The litany runs: Paine, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, and F. D. Roosevelt. In this list of titans, Andrew Jackson ranks high in their eyes. Of all these figures, it is Jackson who is supposed to be closest to F.D.R. in ideology, temperament, and significance. Jackson led not only the poor farmers but also the urban workers in a mass movement against the privileges of monopoly capital. His war on the banks, his opposition to tariffs, and his crackdown on the Southern Nullifiers were part of his championing of human rights versus property rights. The analogy with the great Roosevelt is clear. (A recent example of this approach is the Age of Jackson, by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)
A True Liberal
It is evident that despite the seemingly startling contrasts in these two interpretations, they agree on fundamentals. Both regard Jackson as an anti-capitalistic radical fighting with mass support against the rich, against industry and wealth of all kinds. The fact that the old-liners hated Jackson for this supposed characteristic and that the moderns love him for it should not blur the basic agreement. And it is precisely in this basic agreement that both interpretations of Jackson are grievously in error. It is safe to say that Jackson would have been horrified at the image of him presented by almost all historians, old and new.
For Jackson was nothing of the kind. It is difficult to generalize about Jackson; his fiery temperament, his capacity for bitter personal hatred, his autocratic taste for personal power which blossomed in his early military campaigns, and his weak grasp of political principles led him into many inconsistent and wrong-headed acts. Underneath these weaknesses, petty whims, hatreds, and inconsistencies, however, there is clearly discernible a basic set of political and economic principles. These were, in brief, the principles of pure Jeffersonian Democracy: thorough-going “hard money,” with the eradication of inflationary paper money and reliance on gold and silver; laissez-faire-strict adherence to free enterprise in a market unhampered by government subsidies, tariffs, heavy bureaucratic expenditures, special privileges, or heavy taxation; firm insistence on states' rights. In foreign policy, the guide is America first, last, and always, with no entangling alliances and an attitude of firmness, cordiality, but profound suspicion toward all foreign countries, particularly Great Britain.
The Hard Core
Such was the hard core of Andrew Jackson's principles. In sum, if Andrew Jackson were alive today, he would be generally accused of being an “extreme bitter-end reactionary” and a follower of the “Chicago Tribune line.” In other words, he believed in a government limited to the prevention of violence, otherwise allowing complete individual liberty for all citizens, with no special burdens or privileges for any group.
A brief article can only cover a few high spots in the presentation of an authentic portrayal of the Jacksonian movement. In the first place, the split between the Democrats (Jackson) and the National Republicans or Whigs (Adams, Clay) was not along class or sectional lines. There were a great many rich capitalists, creditors, and substantial citizens who supported Jackson; there were a great many poor laborers and farmers who supported the Nationals. Similarly, there were a host of Easterners who supported Jackson and numerous Westerners who backed the opposition. In fact, the leaders of the Jacksonians were as wealthy and reputable as those of their opponents.
The split between the two parties was mainly ideological. Broadly, the Democrats held that “that government was best that governed least” — they were the true liberals of their day. The Nationals were the incipient Socialists of their time — they advocated a growing network of prohibitions, subsidies, taxes, and expenditures imposed by an expanding central government. They looked forward to the hobbling of states rights, to prohibitive tariffs, and huge federal expenditures on public works. After Adams became President in 1824, the Democratic movement, particularly among its informed leaders, began to take on the nature of a crusade against the emerging statist philosophy of the son of the old Federalist leader. And furthermore, too prone to follow the dictates of Great Britain to suit the Jacksonians.
In the famous Bank War, Jackson was not led by anti-capitalist, pro-inflationist motives. Exactly the contrary. Jackson, and especially the brilliant corps of economists who advised him, saw that the banks, and particularly the Bank of the United States, were the great engines of unsound inflation, leading afterwards to financial disaster. They realized that if the central bank were eliminated, the danger of inflation would be greatly diminished and the return to a truly sound currency would be consummated. Perhaps Jackson's ending of the Bank was too arbitrary and hasty. But his general position on the issue was quite correct.
And finally, if for no other act, Jackson deserves a cherished place in the hearts of all Americans: By the time Jackson left office, for the first time and the last time in the history of America, we had wiped out all of our public debt. Old Hickory's success in liquidating the national debt is one of the most glorious accomplishments in American annals. And it provides us with a vital clue to the true nature of his political philosophy.
Author: Murray N. Rothbard
Murray N. Rothbard made major contributions to economics, history, political philosophy, and legal theory. He combined Austrian economics with a fervent commitment to individual liberty.
The war is still largely one of education, and TDWin is a field ripe for harvest. Some of these people haven't even heard of Barry Goldwater -- frens so new their coats still have the tags.
Imagine the force for good in this world of TEN MILLION educated pro-American Americans. I say, with Trump, that the best is yet to come.
Hard NO. Donald Trump is the head of the Republican Party until he decides he's not. The Republican Party is ours. I don't jump out until Trump says jump out.
Piton doesn't get to make that call, and he's screwing around with our signals and cohesion to try to make Trump's call for him.
And if we go, Donald Trump picks the name of the new party, not Piton.
And if we make a new party, the email list sign-up website sure as hell shouldn't have “investments” in the domain name.
I couldn't make a better distraction if I tried. The sad thing is that I don't think Piton is actually trying to make a false flag or a diversion. I would be happier with this if I knew his intentions were bad.
Hey, u/TeamOrangeFB and anybody else,
I'll say it here as well. We need to know what hosting services we can trust not to deplatform us. We need a trusted list so that we can build things. If anybody knows, please post! I have searched and searched this site! If it needs to be kept low-key, send it by direct message.
If I learn something reliable, I'll post a reply as well.
( u/Doggos ?)
Hey, u/EagleI ,
Did you ever get an answer to your question? I can't find anywhere what hosting TDWin uses, and I'm afraid that that may be secret as part of protecting the site. ( u/Doggos ?) A list of trustworthy hosting companies is just about impossible to come by, which is unfortunate for our whole movement. I am still researching this myself. I have something for which I need an answer to this myself.
If we need to keep the good information low-key, somebody just send me a direct message!
If I learn something reliable, I'll post a reply as well.
I agree with you! People are turning on these people too quickly, over very little or almost nothing. (I assume you mean other people by “you?”)
I'm at least a day behind on Tim Pool as I write this, and I haven't seen Sargon's latest stream, but am going to try to listen tonight. I am betting they haven't seen this stuff I've found yet, though.
[CONTINUED FROM THE POST]
There is another political class so committed to the original Progressive impulse of world transformation through American power and influence that even if they are aware of that previous political class -- and I do believe they are --, it is no obstacle to their commitment. For these people, human beings are infinitely flexible and human culture and traditions are infinitely thin. It is within our grasp, in these people's minds, to make every nation, in one generation, in one giant leap, a little America with a little Constitution and a little Congress and a little President. It's not like some deep, millenium-long cultural and institutional tradition played any part the emergence of our Constitution or Congress, right?
These are the visionaries. Of the whole parade of follies I have described, they are at the head, leading the way. And there is no lobby to oppose them, because by the time we sift our candidates -- often A/B choices and once every two or four or six years -- and use our one vote to try to express at once our preferences on taxes, public works projects, matters of criminal law, judicial appointments, executive branch agency regulations, and government services and government-involved healthcare, where is the margin left in the signal to also communicate in one up-or-down vote an objection to misdeeds committed on the other side of the planet at an expense incurred, it seems, by someone else? Our politicians can -- and do -- decide to undermine and destroy swaths of human civilization (or decide not to get in the way of other politicians doing so), and they can get away with it entirely and indefinitely.
I have been of the belief that this is one of the most important issues in American politics and not just a side item in another category right beside the culture war frills. I have been of the opinion that this should be more important to more people.
Our excesses, when they arise, have gone from slaughtering some hundreds of helpless people in a far away place on rare, sad occasion to destroying nations, cultures, and peoples, and to destabilizing whole regions of the world based on the ideas and sentiments and beliefs, not of anything like a majority of Americans, but of a few of the wealthiest and most politically-connected of people. They have taken the concentrated death and destruction of a Hitler or a Stalin or a Mao and diluted it globally through legal and institutional means, not only to reap any benefits while escaping any penalties, but setting themselves up to be called the heroes in the history books their academic colleagues write and to go out of this world with the prestige and power of those who led and shaped the “free world.”
This is the War Class in the country. This is the “Worth It” school of American foreign policy.
This. People I know connected to missionary circles have been saying for over half a decade that the missionaries are reporting this. The world is being shaken up for good in ways that are not going to be reported on the western news.
No! But wait! There's nO hOpE! By definition, we can no longer ever again have a meaningful election, no matter how hard we try, working from local and state levels upward, and all of us should roll over and play dead so we don't look like fools for trying to take our country back. You people aren't doing it right! We're supposed to DOOM, DOOM, DOOM!