Historic recurrence

How often it has been said that money and power are chronic bedfellows. It is equally well asserted that those primary social ingredients and politicians are exponentially lascivious. Politicians control the government; and in some instances politicians (acting vicariously for their animators) attempt an autocratic control of that government. The ambition is not guaranteed to be selfless.

In the good old days (about 400 years ago) the so-called “estate dynasties” of the realm were run by such ruthless types as the Plantagenets and the Tudors. They were so greedy to control everything that they persisted in the maintenance of the royal prerogative. It would have been an unfathomable obsession were it not for the contemporary absurdities of the Church of England which by no accident or coincidence were aligned with the monarchy. With the combination of the two, the Crown levied its own judicial decisions without attention to its already obsequious judiciary. If the Crown missed an opportunity at paramountcy it summarily imprisoned or executed its opponents. Essentially the Crown – with the notable sanction of the church – rose above the voice of the people expressed through Parliament and the House of Lords. The Crown and the clergy were intertwined for their mutual benefit and approbation.

In the modern vernacular – and in the context of the greatest democracy on earth – we’ve recently witnessed what was only distantly palatable because it resembled something outrageously similar to what Trump would regularly do. Over the past four years in office Trump succeeded so to poison American politics that we were nigh on immune to his version of autocracy and the cataclysmic incitement to it. Currently the Republicans are embarrassing themselves (and in the process confirming the unmistakable allure of power) by hanging onto myths which far surpass the divine righteousness of the Church of England (another example of logical subterfuge).

Meanwhile the autocrats openly practice their ignorance of democracy by barring select election privileges. This selfish devotion characterizes Republican interests over matters of public policy. It is an addiction not even the well known American affection for rambunctious success and Ayn Rand individuality is likely to survive. I doubt the British today feel quite the gusto for Americans they once so volubly expressed.

What however disturbs me most about the theory of historic recurrence is not the energy of its current assailants but rather the repetitive illustration of embedded immorality. Trump for example is not the problem; he is but another puppet of backroom activists. Nor is Trump’s egotistical parade of accomplishments anything more than the insinuation of paltry manifestations peculiar to those entangled in a supervening scheme. Basically it’s the same performance but with different actors. Trump’s distinction is nothing more than toxicity. Stripping away the bombast, there is little of substance that remains. Sadly the fabrications are fed to the uninitiated.


The opponents of the government began to despair of the destiny of their country; and many looked to the American wilderness as the only asylum in which they could enjoy civil and spiritual freedom. There a few resolute Puritans, who, in the cause of their religion, feared neither the rage of the ocean nor the hardships of uncivilised life, neither the fangs of savage beasts nor the tomahawks of more savage men, had built, amidst the primeval forests, villages which are now great and opulent cities, but which have, through every change, retained some trace of the character derived from their founders. The government regarded these infant colonies with aversion, and attempted violently to stop the stream of emigration, but could not prevent the population of New England from being largely recruited by stouthearted and Godfearing men from every part of the old England.

Excerpt From
“The History of England, from the Accession of James II — Volume 1”
by Thomas Babington Macaulay Macaulay

In 17th century England, Thorough was a name given by Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford to a scheme of his to establish absolute monarchy in England. Although “Thorough” is largely attributed to Strafford, its implementation can also be accredited to the Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud.

Laud exploited his secular and religious roles to implement the policy of Thorough in England. Laud used his authority as Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint only Arminian clergymen as bishops; this in turn meant that most vicars they appointed would also be Arminian. Arminianism is a sect of Protestant Christianity which believes in the “Divine Right of Kings” and the (Catholic reminiscent) “Beauty of Holiness”. Laud hoped that his new Arminian Church of England would make the English conform to believing in the “Divine Right”, supporting Charles I’s personal rule and setting up a parliament-independent monarchy.

Mark Twain: “a favorite theory of mine [is] that no occurrence is sole and solitary, but is merely a repetition of a thing which has happened before, and perhaps often.