Are The Federalists Winning?

The last time we saw the Federalist Party was in 1816. Still, they occupy an important place in American history—after all, they led the first coup, and a wildly successful one to boot. What, you ask? Recall—the US Constitution. The proto-Federalists seized the opportunity of their opponents being out of the country to declare a “Constitutional Convention”, despite the US already having Constitution—the Articles of Confederation. Conveniently, the population of the country didn’t get to actually vote on this new Constitution.

This is the Wikipedia version of who the Federalists were, and it should ring at least a few bells for those who have been following the Great Reset:

The Federalist Party was the first political party in the United States. Under Alexander Hamilton, it dominated the national government from 1789 to 1801. It became a minority party while keeping its stronghold in New England and made a brief resurgence by opposing the War of 1812. It then collapsed with its last presidential candidate in 1816. Remnants lasted in a few places for a few years. The party appealed to businesses and to conservatives who favored banks, national over state government, manufacturing, an army and navy, and in world affairs preferred Great Britain and opposed the French Revolution. The party favored centralization, federalism, modernization and protectionism.

This business of the Federalist Party came to mind recently when my friend George sent me one of his Russian updates. I’ll paste in the first page, but some explanation is in order before we get to that.

When George speaks of a “rules based order” in opposition to a “law based order” I take it that what he means by “rules based order” is the kind of order in which a dominant power sets the rules according to its preferences—it doesn’t allow itself to be bound by laws, although it may speak in the language of law when it suits, but that’s largely gaslighting. In other words, it’s the “we set the rules gang.” The specific situation George has in mind is Russia demanding that the “rules” of the US (or NATO, if you insist) v. Russia be formalized in writing—a “legal” format—rather than the US’s preferred ever changing “rules”.

Beyond the US v. Russia, however, I suggest that this is very much about the Globalist Great Reset. Putin’s nationalist Russia is a major thorn in the side of the Globalists, which explains the US policy of surrounding Russia in an ever tightening noose. All the usual US political crime families have been active in this program in Ukraine (but also Georgia, Kazakhstan, etc.) along with George Soros. And this is where the Federalist Party comes in—I imagine the current Globalist faction in the US as the bi-partisan descendants of the Federalists.

So, George writes:

[“Tripolar world” – what is it, how does it work, is it a future project or does it already shape the global political space?]

It is surely peculiar when a “rules-based order” regime turns against both domestic populations, mostly in “the West”, and simultaneously against its global geopolitical rivals, who are rivals principally over that very principle of a “rules-based” rather than “law-based” global order. And it is surely peculiar when the locus of the “rules-based order” crystallizes at its core domicile, the USA, and radiates from there throughout the “US-dependent” parts of the world. Or, more briefly and succinctly, Covid “rules” domestically meet the “we set the rules” gang in geopolitics, which sees its raison d’etre in containment of Russia, which in turn is the main rival, with China, to the rules-based order globally, both militarily and economically.

Please note that: It’s a two-front war with a new twist. The fronts are foreign and domestic. The enemies are more or less the same on each front: opponents of the Great Reset.

This is war. “When will war break out, or will war break out?” academics and journalists ask. Like everything else, the answer is a matter of perspective, narrow or broad, short term or long term, as an immediate event which just happens for more or less immediate reasons or as a historic inevitability.

From a certain perspective, the US “Civil War” was a world war (and even Russia was involved), and the issues and reasons were the same as today. The US-domestic issue of slavery collided with “all men are created equal” of the US Declaration of Independence (a document to which Russian diplomats refer today quite frequently) and war broke out over what Abraham Lincoln called “an abstract principle”, “freedom.” The southern US plantation system, however, could have agreed to gradually let itself be replaced, even to the economic benefit of those who adhered to the plantation system, had it not been supported and enforced by the New York and Boston based financial houses and the shipping companies that depended on them, as they did in the Venetian system, for credit for advanced financing of their global trade. The US south – simplifying somewhat – produced the cotton which was transported in raw form to England, where it was manufactured into cloth, which was subsequently sold by force in the British colony, India, displacing Indian cotton and cloth production, which was substituted with opium, which was then shipped to China and sold by force to the Chinese population.

Lincoln won the war against the southern plantation system but he did not win the war against the global system, neither at home nor abroad. It was not his fault, nor was it the fault of the US presidents of the past who were assassinated. I am sure the US holds a record for a single country in that category although the CIA surely eliminated a larger number of foreign leaders.

It was no one’s fault but each new step in the history of the “slave system” provided those who are operationally minded a rich field of study. The first or most primitive lesson is simply that such a system is the Malthusians’ own self-image (“limits to growth”, the growth of their policy dominance is limited ) and thus that it will destroy itself. It will always reach a “crisis point” at which the “opportunity” opens to crush it. Up to that point, however, the “global system” can and did manifest the meta-stability of competition which did indeed establish its own “rules”, akin to Mafiosi who agree to respect a rival’s territorial domination if it is not prepared to wage full war to seize the territory at the moment. The operational question is therefore, When and how will it all come together, when will the centuries-long crisis become the opportunity to end it?

So, to summarize, George sees the current US/Russia confrontation as another episode in the history of a global “slave system” by which financial interests impose their will on usually unwitting populations. It brings to mind what I quoted Catherine Fitts saying yesterday, that the Globalists view “us” as “natural resources”—fruit to be squeezed. But the tools they have at their disposal make their power far more awesome than in the days of the Federalist junior partners to the British Empire. The Lincolnian alternative was “freedom”. That’s never been a popular concept among the Globalist set of either Right or Left.

Well, as George Smiley said in a different context, “It’s a theory.”