The US is not on an island all by itself. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans were never meant to be treated as ‘natural barriers’ separating the Union from the Eurasian landmass. As Pearl Harbor, Globalization, 9/11, Great Recession and Coronavirus Pandemic have attested, the spatial distance between the Union and the Eurasian landmass is shrinking. Moreover, whatever happens in Latin America will affect the Union along the US-Mexico Border and the State of Florida. Anyone from Eurasia is capable of stirring chaos south of the US-Mexico Border because the Jeffersonians are too withdrawn and too absent-minded at their Monticellos to care. When the Jeffersonians do care, the Democratic-Republican Party subjugates the Latin Americans for their Kapital.
World history has demonstrated a wide range of Eurasian powers trying to turn Latin America into their own sphere of influence. The Spanish and Portuguese, the British and French, the Hitlerists and the Soviets, the Chinese and Japanese have all had some sort of influence from Mexico to Argentina. Everyone likes to persuade the countries of Latin America that even if the Federalist Party returns to power, the Americans will continue behaving like colonialists. US Foreign Policy has been formulated by the Jeffersonians for so long that it is difficult to imagine whether things will be different with the Hamiltonians. With Jeffersonian propagandists claiming this, it is no wonder that a sizeable chunk of Latin America distrusts the US.
I have yet to find anyone in the US who understands why the peoples of Latin America are not as well-off as the American people. What the American people do not realize is that we could be as impotent and lame as the peoples of Latin America. Our Union, our Federal government, prevents us from sharing the same fate. Historians and US History textbooks are not informing the American people that Hamiltonian Federalism has a Latin American equivalent. I am of course referring to the Bolivarian Federalism begun by Simón Bolívar.
Gran Columbia: One or Many Socialisms?
The Synthesis of American Nationalism and American Socialism is Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism. Its Latin American counterpart is a Synthesis of Venezuelan Nationalism and Venezuelan Socialism, laying the metaphysical groundwork for a Bolivarian Federalist Socialism.
When Hugo Chávez came to power, a Synthesis between Venezuelan Nationalism and Venezuelan Socialism was taking place around the turn of the 21st century to realize Bolivarian Federalist Socialism. Chavez and his followers had aligned themselves with Bolivarianism in opposition against the Empire of Liberty. Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador and Panama are heirs to the legacy of Greater Columbia, the victims of the Liberal Capitalists–these Jeffersonians and Madisonian Federalists in the Democratic-Republican Party. Bolivarian Federalist Socialism wants the same Ordered Liberty of Duty and Honor cherished by Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism in the SMP Compendium:
- A Congress of Councils with a functioning Council Democracy
- Economic Self-Sufficiency and Military Sovereignty
- Socialism as a “Vocational Civil Service” (q.v. Theodore Roosevelt and Oswald Spengler)
- Abolition of Kapital and Schuld in favor of Arbeit and Geld
Unfortunately, Bolivarian Federalist Socialism is falling out of favor among Venezuelans because it is suffering from the same problem that affects all other Socialisms in economic history. Venezuela as of late is a Mixed Economy due to its out of control Economic Foreignization, its Council Democracy constantly at risk of becoming a Parliamentary Democracy. It must be stated over and over that Socialist Economics demands Socialist Finance, which is the recurring argument throughout the SMP Compendium.
My fellow Americans, the Federalist Party should not just blame James Madison for some of the misfortunes in Socialism because James Monroe was as much a protégé of Thomas Jefferson. Monroe was the one who invented the Monroe Doctrine, providing all justifications for any US subjugation of Latin America and creating domestic policy headaches along the US-Mexico Border and Florida. The mass migrations of people from Latin America to the Union is the ultimate revenge of reality for our indifference, ambivalence and ignorance toward the Empire of Liberty.
Our Hamiltonian Federalist and Henryist Anti-Federalists are not the only ones in the Americas who oppose the Democratic-Republican Party and the Empire of Liberty. There are Bolivarian Federalists in various Latin American countries who are also opposed to the Democratic-Republican Party and the Empire of Liberty. What distinguishes Hamiltonian Federalism from Bolivarian Federalism is Henryist Anti-Federalism. There is no Anti-Federalist tradition within Bolivarian Federalism. That is the real weakness behind Bolivarian Federalist Socialism, as evidenced by the cronyism, favoritism, demagoguery and corruption of Latin American nations.
Another geopolitical question to think about from an American perspective is whether Venezuela would try to recreate Gran Columbia. How would US Foreign Policy account for this in a world where the countries of Latin America are relying on the Work-Standard as member-states of the World State Organization? How should the US react to this in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes in 1941?
Fortunately for any aspiring Latin American Anti-Federalists, there have been members of the Catholic clergy and religious who provided guidance on how to deal with these issues. After all, the Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry was against Madison and Jefferson due to them refusing to support religious education and advocating for “the Separation of Church and State,” which that Petrinist Ayn Rand would later promote and condone as “the Separation of State and Economy.”
If Catholic clergy and religious are segregated from political participation in the Federal and State governments, it is not very long before they are also banned from economic participation in both. The Separation of Church and State yields the Separation of State and Economy, the Separation of State and Economy eventually leading to the Separation of Community and Family, followed by the Separation of Family and Individual. Such a tragedy has been repeating itself over and over again across the US-Mexico Border. The American people are suffering the same hardships as the peoples in Latin America by trying to care for the millions who have fled from their own Lands because there is only Schuld over there.
It is precisely what the Patroness of Catholic Education, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, SC, had warned Americans of:
“Disorder in the society is the result of disorder in the family.”
Großdeutschland: One or Many Socialisms?
An American visiting the German Reich will find their Land to be very diverse and likewise for a German visiting these United States. A Socialist world order is capable of helping the Americans and the Germans understand who as they are as different peoples in two separate continents. If my conclusions here are correct that those two countries are meant to be Command Economies, despite having very diverse polities, how would this arrangement look politically and socially?
The “American people,” as John Jay argued in The Federalist Papers, did not arise from a natural process. They emerged from an historical process begun by the Seven-Years War (the “French and Indian War,” as it is known in US History textbooks), continuing with the American Revolution and in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist attempts to reunite these United States under a new Constitution.
The “German people,” as Karl Otto Paetel argued in National Bolshevik Manifesto stated that the “German people” did not arise from a natural process. They too emerged from an historical process begun by the Napoleonic Wars, continuing with the Industrial Revolution and in the Prussian and Austrian attempts to reunite the German-speaking world under a new Reich.
The question being addressed by German Socialists and German Nationalists within the pages of Karl Otto Paetel’s National Bolshevik Manifesto does have a US equivalent in John Jay’s Federalist Papers. There is a very similar set of metaphysical arguments being promoted by Paetel and Jay which I find to be highly peculiar because America and Germany have always been two different countries on two separate continents.
Should the Reich be defined by East Prussia? For Paetel, the Reich must not be defined entirely by East Prussia. One noteworthy example is how Paetel argued for each State government to have its own State Civil Service and a Reich government with its own Reich Civil Service.
“There indeed, as both Oswald Spengler and Moeller van den Bruck identified within the ‘Prussian Style’, is the type of [German] Socialism which we have demanded arise within the German [States]; it already exists in them in embryonic form. There has that choice for ‘We’ over ‘I’, for unity in polarity, already manifested itself (in contrast to the Marxist conception of society) a creative self-existence, grounded in blood and steel – and experienced as a demand, not as some special opportunity.
Of course, one must keep in mind that there is another side to these things: it is no coincidence that the synthesis became ‘Prussianism and Socialism’[.] Even the Prussian Principle is today in danger of being misused.
[I]t goes without saying, of course, that this is not about the [State] of [East] Prussia – which will have to be subordinated to the organic, decentralized unity-concept through the council-structure of the tribal regions (the ancestral heartland of Prussia indeed did not establish a biologically distinct but historically existent ‘new tribal concept’) – but Prussia’s impulse of will. One could also say that it is about Germany’s ‘Prussianization’.
Socialism will transform [the] German ‘citizens’ [of each State] into [citizens] of the German [Reich]; the contradictions between Nation, Volk, and State will be abolished by [this new Reich] and refashioned into a new synthesis.”
Should the Union be defined by New York? For Jay, the Union must not be defined entirely by New York. One noteworthy example is how Jay specifically argued for each State Civil Service to have a State government and a Federal Civil Service with its own Federal government.
“The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us[.]
It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies.
Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government,–especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us.
Because, under the national government, treaties and articles of treaties, as well as the laws of nations, will always be expounded in one sense and executed in the same manner,–whereas, adjudications on the same points and questions, in thirteen States, or in three or four confederacies, will not always accord or be consistent; and that, as well from the variety of independent courts and judges appointed by different and independent governments, as from the different local laws and interests which may affect and influence them. The wisdom of the convention, in committing such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed by and responsible only to one national government, cannot be too much commended.”
What is very peculiar about the National Bolshevik Manifesto is how its author assumed that whoever was reading it is from East Prussia. What is also peculiar about Federalist Paper Nos. 2-5 is its how its author assumed whoever was reading it is from New York. And yet the two documents were written prior to a specific tragedy in the histories of their respective countries. The Jeffersonians were plotting to take over America during the 1790s and the Hitlerists were plotting to take over Germany during the 1930s. New York and East Prussia would have suffered together if the Jeffersonians and the Hitlerists had been the ones waging the Cold War as a continuation of World War II. The Jeffersonians and Hitlerists would have dragged Prussia, New York and the rest of humanity into a free trade of thermonuclear fire and radiation.
The 1960s Counterculture, instead of emerging in these United States, would have emerged in the German Reich because of this peculiar passage from Paetel in National Bolshevik Manifesto:
“From the beginning, a succession of relatively small ‘far-right’ groups have kept their distance from the NSDAP (their spokesmen never having associated with the Party), which today consciously stands against them because they are “National Communist” and Anti-Fascist.
The more apparent it becomes that Adolf Hitler is unable to honor his promises [of realizing Socialism in Germany], the promises with which he today holds the columns of idealistic Anti-Capitalist youth ([including] the young, already thoroughly sociologically-uprooted Bourgeoisie) under his banner alongside the crowds of people anxious to safeguard their own interests, the closer the hour comes when in Germany the long-mocked and long-scorned position of National Communism can be realized.
Today we are still ‘Utopians’. But the far-sighted among the ‘conservative’ Grailkeepers already see the danger for them approaching on the horizon. Albrecht Erich Günther, the co-editor of the Deutsche Volkstum, wrote:
“In the national revolutionary youth, which provides momentum to the ‘national opposition’, a deep suspicion sets in: shall we one day be led as ‘white’ storm-columns against a ‘red’ flood? These and other insights awaken mistrust against the foreign policy of [Kapital]-hungry business groups, so it stands to reason to decide against ‘white’ – that is, for ‘red’: [I]f we are on the right track in this attempt at interpretation, so can we also predict that, the moment the exponents of economic reason gain influence over the national opposition and bring them not economic relief but instead a new subjugation to France, the [Pan-Germanic] Socialist masses undergo a transformation in their state of being. They become National [Communists]. National [Communism] will then attain the same fervor as that of [Pan-Germanic] Socialism, but it will also be directed against [Liberal Capitalism], perhaps by a different ecstatic ‘Drummer’.” This analysis, written at the time of the Brüning government, is still valid [in 1933, in 1945, in 1990, and beyond].”
Again, the Patroness of Catholic Education offers another instructive lesson here:
“If I had to advise parents, I should tell them to take great care about the people with whom their children associate. Much harm may result from bad company, and we are inclined by nature to follow what is worse than what is better.”
Categories: Third Place