What makes it so difficult to talk to both the right and the left about the concept of capitalism, and thus also about economics in general, is that neither right-liberalism nor left-liberalism, which calls itself socialism, seem to have a total understanding of the concept.
The left or right wings sit in their own ideological packaging with a fragment of an understanding, and hold the patent close to their body so that no one else gets their hands on it. Or rather: both wings keep everything from on a distance that could disturb their world view. In addition, both wings have a large gap in understanding that goes beyond what they believe they have in their framework of understanding and action. What is in the hole is the glue that could glue the fragments together and the key to a deeper understanding.
The right of every man to trade freely with another man without interference from authorities, organizations or cartels.
Is it capitalism that controls the market and is therefore the problem?
We will try to answer that question in the following.
The concept of liberal/liberty
In the standardized form, on the one hand, as a right-liberalist, you believe that capitalism is a good thing that keeps the wheels turning. They talk about the free market and free market forces and free trade. This is their definition of being liberal, and they are big consumers of ways to create combinations of the word ‘free’. However, they neglect to define who has the privilege of being free and what they are free from. In addition, they ‘forget’ to tell who should not expect to benefit from this freedom.
In the standardized form as a left-liberalist, on the other hand, one believes that capitalism is evil, that the market must be regulated, and that the socialist state must come in and control not only companies but also the doings and actions of all private individuals. This is their definition of what it means to be liberated. It is a bit difficult to save at the finish line, because how can regulation, control, surveillance and restrictions – i.e. socialism in the form of meticulous social control – have anything to do with liberation and freedom?
The right-liberal ideology as we encounter it today has very little to do with its own starting point. Adam Smith would have dropped his jaw and turned in his grave. He was not what he has later been taken to be: a laissez-faire pre-Darwinian capitalist. It is the backward projection of posterity, and more specifically of the Darwinian epoch – thief believes that every man steals. The industrialists of the 19th century put on blinders and read his economic treatise The Wealth of Nations, but shelved the book he considered his masterpiece The Theory of Moral Sentiments. You understand why when you read his statement:
Capitalism depends on and therefore fuels honesty and charity.
The 19th century imperialists, industrialists and capitalists thus removed the entire moral foundation for the Prosperity of Nations. It’s not that hard to understand when you consider this to be the nature of their amoral project. Moral responsibility, in English philosophical tradition Ethics had to be amputated and they read Adam Smith like the Devil read the Bible. Smith advocated that self-interest was arranged in such a way that, via the capitalist system, it could turn to the benefit of the common good. When people were allowed to work freely for themselves and their own business without interference, it had a beneficial and knock-on effect on society.
Adam Smith walked the talk. He was an extremely wealthy man. When his mother grew old, he took care of her, and before he himself died, he bequeathed a large part of his fortune to the charity of the poor. He believed in free initiative, the free right to deal with others without violent interference from the state and corporations larger than one’s own, but this freedom was implicit in the responsibility that a set of morals brought with it.
Well, it was then between 1723-1790 that moral scruples were needed, because in our time we have recognized that this kind of thing is just a nuisance. Besides the cynical nature of such a statement – they don’t say that because then people would boo them, but that’s how they think and act – the statement is untrue. In our time, it is needed more than ever, because it is what is missing.
Sir John James Cowperthwaite was the British financial secretary of Hong Kong. He built between 1961-71 a system with very little corruption on the original Adam Smithian principles of benign negligence, benevolent non-interference.
Combining the two concepts shows how and when things go wrong. Non-interference + corruption add up to what happened to the Western economy after Bill Clinton’s override of the Glass-Steagall Act and up to the Financial Crisis of 2007-09 = totally unregulated corrupt predatory capitalism. Interference + corruption gives the socialist system that was violently introduced via the Russian Revolution = totally regulated corrupt state fascism, red, yellow or green is same-same. One thinks somewhat in the direction of the EU today, which, like the Soviet state, has commissar rule and a planned economy.
The result of minimal-interference + minimal-corruption was the reason, why Cowperthwaite’s Hong Kong, the trading culture, living standards and earnings of both ordinary small traders and large trading enterprises boomed!
So both predatory capitalism (crony capitalism) and socialism = red state fascism created a system where the population was plundered by the bankers and their political servants. Sir John’s thesis, on the other hand, was that supportive non-interference with the local trading tradition would allow the local trading culture to unfold, which was the right model for creating prosperity. And it happened! It seems like a bit of a no-brainer, but it obviously took a British nobleman and merchant with real intentions to articulate and practice the obvious.
We all know that Hong Kong became this magnet for economic dynamism, which in 1997 was taken over by the Chinese with limited autonomy. They were wise enough then to realize that the dynamic consisted of a certain measure of non-interference and sovereignty. As we know, things turned bad recently, and prosperity in freedom for Hong Kong is over.
Note: The English term crony capitalism is defined in Business Dictionary like this:
An economy that is, on paper, a free market, but allows beneficial regulation and other favorable government interventions based on personal relationships. In such a system, the falsified surface of ‘pure capitalism’ is maintained to hide the exclusive influence of well-connected individuals.
As danes we might think of Bjarne Corydon, later chief editor for the leading business magazine Børsen?
Mr. Shadow-government, as he likes to be portrayed.
He sold the national Danish energy company to Goldman Sachs for half the price of its worth, so that they a couple of years later could sell for the double price = its real worth. For that piece of corrupt filth he was rewarded with a good job in a consulting firm – owned by Goldman Sachs. At the time of the corrupt sale, his governement put in a now legislation, that basically jammed the Freedom of Information Act.
When the wall fell together with the Soviet state and the institutions of socialism, it suddenly became clear that there was no essential difference between the wings in poliltics that had been artificially lined up against each other in the Cold War. The left stepped out of the closet and into their true nature as: liberalists. Non-Anglo-Saxons in particular have difficulty understanding the term liberal, which in Anglo-Saxon is simply a synonym for left-wing.
If Adam Smith coerced capitalism with-a-twist, then Karl Marx voluntarily championed socialism… where is the opposite? Non at all! If one reads Marx, it is quite clear that capitalist society is his wishful dream, without which the historical machine called historical materialism cannot fire off. Interesting by the way that history in the infancy of machines and industrialism itself was considered … a machine. The bourgeoisie, capitalism, industrialism and the working class were an absolute prerequisite for the contradiction that would automatically (mechanically, deterministically, robot-dialectically) lead to the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was therefore that the revolution had to forcefully introduce a working class and an ideological class consciousness into a Russian agrarian society where this class simply did not exist. It had to be imported and implemented – with extreme coercive means!
Just as the right-liberalists do not define who benefits from their ‘freedom’ and what they are free to and free from (perhaps especially), the left-liberalists / Marxists do not define who this ‘proletariat’ is to dictate. Someone with an avant-garde, yes, because it is obviously not the working class, which was just a kind of historically deterministic fuel in the machine.
As implyed by the picture, which is
stolen borrowed from Danish newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad’s article: Marx Made Himself Rabbi of the People of the World …, the Jew Karl Marx (1818-83) of course read Adam Smith 100 years later. He has read everything possible and selected, de-selected and tailored what he read to his purpose. It is from Marx that left-liberalism’s definition of freedom/emancipation comes, for the working class should, via revolutionary activity, produce socio-economic emancipation = liberation. Again: liberated from what? Liberated from their tradition, their nation, their family, liberated from religion, God and faith and later liberated from their own gender and their own body. But not liberated to slave to death, liberated from reporting, surveillance, executions, Gulag and no freedom to speak, assemble and organize. Marx had a sharp eye when it came to analyzing the bourgeoisie and economic analyzes of surplus value, in relation to the means of production, but he had no understanding of what it meant to be human, which is why his theories translated into practice entailed an unheard of barbarism and inhumanism in the form of 300,000,000 people killed in the 20th century and lifelong misery for those who survived the machinery.
The decisive difference between Adam Smith’s moral thinking and Karl Marx’s is its anchoring in authenticity. You cannot separate man from his mindset. Smith walked-the-talk, Marx acted like a psychopathic stupid pig. For Smith it was a personal moral matter, for Marx it was an abstract thought where you could say and think and write one thing but did not have to live it. Smith acted with charity to his family, Marx was violent and brutal towards his family, and his fine ideas about the working class were revealed as pure hypocrisy when Bakunin asked him at the 1st International, Did he not think that workers should participate in this labor movement? – whereupon Marx threw a tantrum, because god-damn-it couldn’t be! Read Trotsky’s statements about the working class and his fierce contempt for these goyim, these subhumans who according to him and Lenin were to be subjugated via perpetual terror.
When the Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School later had to recognize that this accursed working class was not going to fulfill the material-deterministic function dictated to them by the dictatorship of the proletariat, they shifted their focus to all other marginalized groups that could be fitted with a victim role, the women, the blacks, the Jews, gay-lesbian bi- and transsexuals, students, artists – ANYTHING can be used, it’s just a matter of the right staging, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, cannibals are poor oppressed, ultra-fat people, Indians, illegal immigrants on their drug conviction in Guatemala, organ and child traffickers, Hillary Clinton who lost the election because she was such an unsympathetic individual – too bad for them! And because the Cultural Marxists are in solidarity with the poor oppressed, they are by definition always right!
The anarchist Bakunin stated before he was assassinated: It is remarkable what a bag of Rothschild money can do… This statement is little known among socialists, but reveals what the hidden agenda of socialism was. Marx never mentioned the central banking system (Rothschild) with a single word in Das Kapital, because it was precisely the Wall Street bankers (Jacob Schiff) who financed and organized the revolution and sent Trotsky and Lenin into Russia to carry out the greatest looting in world history and create a social experiment in the form of a modernist slave society that lasted 70 years.
When the Soviet state collapsed, the Cold War illusion of the evil capitalists and the good socialists also fell apart. The evil capitalists were not evil because they were capitalists, but precisely because they were NOT capitalists but syndicalists. And the good socialists were not very good, because in the meantime they had signed up under the banner of global fascists – which they had been all along, but they had no idea (internationalism = globalism).
Read: The Russian Revolution, which is a very different version of history than the one we learned in socialist sunday school back in the last millennium.
Without the anchoring in Cold War ideology, the compass spun around and made an ideological pole shift, after which the polarity almost disappeared or became pure theatre. The left led right-wing politics and the right led left-wing politics. None of the wings had any clothes on, and after the blanket fell off the wall they were left bare-assed. Right and left threw themselves into each other’s arms over lost climate policy, NATO and EU enthusiasm, denial of reality and exercise of censorship. Their linguistics from that time cracked, the clichés sounded hollow and the words turned upside down. Connections had disappeared and nihilist language such as ‘conspiracy theorists’ became their Teflon against anyone who demanded an explanation and a connection. The new Law of Jante said:
Don’t believe there are correlations,
don’t believe you can ask about correlations,
don’t think we want to hear about correlations …
What remained was flat-screen 2D reality and media soundbites where all correlation is absent.
Liberalism on the right or on the left was globalism all along and from the start. Here we are not talking about Adam Smith, who did not foresee what liberalism would develop into and would probably never have welcomed the development. We are talking about the kind of liberalism that washed up in the swells of Darwinian imperialism.
Not unlike the amputated reading of people like Isaac Newton, where most of their written work was sorted out on non-materialistic subjects to create a nihilistic science with the cosmos a dead chance machine, Adam Smith’s written work was amputated to be about economic mechanisms – the textbook/driver’s license for the economic machine that, from the mid-1800s until today, was supposed to drive humanity over.
As Russian sociologist and philosopher Alexandr Dugin describes in his book The Fourth Political Theory, fascism, the second political theory died in 1945, and socialism, the third political theory died in 1989-91. What remained was the 1st political theory, liberalism = globalism, which had now become totalitarian in a delusional belief that NOTHING stood in its way. The 1st political theory is therefore the main enemy in the creation of a world for people, since the theory only has itself as overall purpose. The 4th political theory is formed by people for people and is therefore not fully formulated yet. It is open, it is in discourse and is therefore non-deterministic. We can all contribute to it and do not have to find ourselves in formulations that are lowered onto us from above.
The concept of equality
Equality is a revolutionary concept that demonstrates the schism between standardized right and left thinking. According to leftist thinking, inequality is a problem in itself and must be eliminated. Everyone should be equal. According to right-wing thinking, inequality is desirable because it creates a dynamic. If inequality is good, more inequality must be even better. Both extremes are out of line, and what could be of value in both views of life becomes a parody and thus destructive. It lags with anthropology = the understanding of how people think and feel and act. It lags with a holistic view.
Well, we might ask, don’t they have research institutes whose main purpose is to understand how? The question is incorrectly asked and therefore gives the wrong answer. We know that there are institutes, think tanks, schools with sociologists, anthropologists and a bunch of other -logs who study life loosely in human doings, but the question should be: What is the main purpose of it besides understanding? Do they study us to better our life conditions, or is there another purpose.
The purpose is the same as that of the intelligence agencies. Many people think that they just sniff to protect us from the enemy – because that’s what they say themselves. They don’t do that, they sniff to make amends, i.e. to make amends afterwards. They study and spy on what they have defined as the enemy in order to destroy that enemy or execute/execute the enemy – which has sometimes been found to mean execution. Aha, we should immediately ask, does that mean that WE are their enemy since they are now spying big time on US? BINGO! It is the same with the behaviourist institutes. They do not study human behavior for the sake of it, or to write learned, academic treatises on the subject, but to make their knowledge available to the people who commissioned the work.
So whether these institutes recommend equality or inequality, they don’t do it because it’s part of human nature, which they want to nurture or protect and help us all understand (even though they’re funded by taxpayers- money) but because they want to reprove/manipulate human nature – and in some cases execute it.
When right-liberals go completely off their leash with deregulation, they give way to predatory monopoly capitalism. It was Bill Clinton’s assignment from his backers, the Rockefellers, after which he removed the Glass-Steagall Act, which stood in the way of the new train. The statistics show it, and everyone agrees: inequality is greater than ever, and even fewer today own even more of the earth’s resources. The thesis from the Reagan era onward was that when the rich were allowed to move, it would rain money and prosperity down the system, but that is a piece of flawed anthropology, because when the rich were given unlimited freedom, they just went for it becoming ultra-rich rather than investing and setting the wheels in motion for the benefit of everyone else.
Power corrupts, unlimited power corrupts limitless.
This is what predatory capitalist paradise looked like back then –
they may wear other fashion clothes, but they are just as ugly
When left-liberals go completely off their leash with regulation, they ignore that people are not equal. Equality is an ideological construct. Only 10% of humanity is able to create success in their financial lives, and only 10% of that 10% is able to become truly wealthy. According to socialist understanding of man, on the other hand, you can train all people to become and do anything, as long as you give them opportunities to do so. Environment is everything, heritage is nothing. But it’s a piece of flawed anthropology that does people far more harm than good, and socialism is far too much about envy. According to socialist morality, just being successful and wealthy is a mortal sin. Which explains why socialist regimes have been mostly failed societies, because the successful and inventive-enterprising entrepreneur was an antisocial person who exploited others.
THIS is what the socialist paradise looked like
Few people, however, mind the fact that some are able to create wealth. What really creates resistance to inequality – and rightly so! – is a clear sense that the system is rigged and that no fair game is being played with open cards. The rich don’t just get rich from their entrepreneurial power and skill, they get rich because they cheat, steal with arms and legs and lie to their heart’s content. ´The don’t play by the rules, but demand of you and me, that we do. They get rich because they have had the power to create a system where they are favored disproportionately and where they can indulge themselves on a daily basis.
The State should have intervened against that kind of inequality, but the State has seen itself forced NOT to do so, because the ultra-rich globalists have created trans-national structures with more power and greater resource accumulation than the nations and their governments, whereby they have the power to to crush a state, a nation, a population, if these were to intervene. Therefore, the revolutionary project – and in that sense the EU is a revolutionary (fascist) project – has had as its main goal the destruction of the nations and the individual states/governments, because these see it, the EU believes, and all revolutionaries since Robespierre & Co believed, that their task was to protect citizens from abuse. The project consisted in the gradual surrender of sovereignty. How can we protect you, if you don’t gives us the power to do so? And so we did, but suddently things were quite different.
Note: Maximillien Robespierre (1758-94) was executed 225 years ago after having himself ordered the execution of between 20,000 and 50,000 Frenchmen. He did that as a member of the … hold on to the chair here: The Welfare Committee! A grotesque example of revolutionary cultivation of new speak.
Robespierre – one of the ‘brothers’ modeled on his death mask
… and what about the brotherhood?
The concept of liberty is falsified on one side, where it means liberty for the globalists to boast and liberty from being held accountable. That means free trade in a market governed by their cartels, their treaties and their financial algorithms and the liberty to pull all the money out of the system and hoard it in their off-shore tax havens.
The concept of liberty is faltered on the other political wing, where emancipation led from the old world into modernity with entirely new and cunning ways of being despotic, and where revolution (Robespierre > Lenin) led from monarchy to a dysfunctional, nihilistic slave society. Add to that libertine sex without responsibility, liberty to kill fetuses, liberty for one’s own gender and one’s own body, liberty from traditions and God, king and fatherland. By the way, isn’t that called satanism…?
The concept of equality consisted either of an abyss of inequality or a total leveling of all human diversity and a ban of excellence.
So much for Liberty and Equality. So what about the much-vaunted concept of Fraternity/Brotherhood, if we are to reverse the whole three-part motto of the Enlightenment?
Schiller (1759-1805) used the word in his euphoric pre-revolutionary poem An die Freude, a cross between a student’s drunken song for large chorus and a resurrection poem. The stanza Alle Menschen werden Brüder (all humans are brethren) is a tribute to humanity, and in a later stanza it says:
Rettung von Tirannenketten,
Großmut auch dem Bösewicht,
Hoffnung auf den Sterbebetten,
Gnade auf dem Hochgericht!
Rescue from the tyrant’s chains,
Forbearance even for the rascal,
Hope at the deathbed,
Grace by the Supreme Court
So it is about forgiveness for sins on the last day. We know the poem from the final movement of Beethoven’s 9th symphony, because Ludvig van B was very into Sturm und Drang.
For Schiller it was about the Great Hope for Mankind, but there were other brotherhoods on the field at the same time, for whom Hope for Mankind was quite secondary, although they were happy to wave banners and slogans when they felt they needed to mobilize the popular masses. At the age of 26, Schiller wrote his poem in 1885, four years before the French Revolution, when the brotherhoods staged a coup d’état fueled by the manipulated fuel of popular indignation.
In that sense, the concept of fraternization is an Enlightenment concept, for the lodges, the fraternities were the forums where freedom and equality were discussed and conspired on how to accomplish the fraternity’s agenda. The story of the Jacobins is the story of how the Masonic Lodges were infiltrated and overthrown and became the organs of a Kabbalistic, Sabbatical, Jesuit project of a New World Order.
Both the French Revolution and the Turkish Revolution led by the Young Turks were inspired by Jacob Frank (th), student of the swindler Sabattei Zevi (tv), who postulated that he was the Messiah. Dönmeh was the name of the pre-Zionist, Sabbatean groups of crypto-Jews who overthrew the Ottoman Empire (and carried out a Holocaust against the Armenians) – they were ‘Frankists’. The Jacobins were named after his first name.
The New World, America, and the American Revolution was in many ways a Masonic project. The essence of lodges and their brotherhood is that the The State of The World is something you agree on every Wednesday, when you show up with a hat and a penguin suit. Extra-parliamentarism and post-democracy is a lodge and brotherhood concept. The two World Wars + the Russian and Turkish revolutions of the last century – all that destroyed the Old World – were conceived and ignited from the British-French network of lodges.
Are freemasons a bunch of evil conspirators? This is not, what we say here. Freemansonry was infiltrated and abused by evil conspirators with a certain formula. The saw the structure was there for a hiding place and used it. But there are many-many lodges of very different purposes, and each lodge consists of layers.
They tried the same formula during the Arab Spring, but the Egyptians had smelled the fuse with the Muslim Brotherhood and hit the brakes. The Brotherhood, the Cabal aka the secret lodges, the CFR, Bilderberg, the Committee of 300, the Club of Rome, the P2 lodge, all the forever shape-shifting co-ordinating common forums for the Lodges with new names and new meeting places tomorrow and the day after tomorrow modeled on the Venetian Council of Ten, have laid out their vision for a World Government on the Planet of the Apes. Because according to their perverted moral code, they are allowed to do whatever they want – Aleister Crowley: Do What Thou Wilt – as long as they’ve said so in public.
Tamkine is the Muslim Brotherhood’s core concept of Islam’s total takeover of the entire world under their interpretation of Sharia law. Do not forget that the Brotherhood does not represent traditional and true Islam, they represent the coup of Islam that British intelligence created to smash the Ottoman Empire and, together with the French, cut up the Middle East like a big layer cake. That so many Muslims jump on it anyway is because the financiers behind the construction of the majority of mosques in the last 100 years are Saudi Arabia – the headquarters of Wahabbi Islam, the Salafist-fundamental rape of Islam that the Brotherhood represents. So you can buy into people’s version of the faith!
Understand the background of fundamentalist Islam by reading:
The dying god – the history of kabbalism
A random thought: Would Tamkine and the total dominance by Salafism mean a return to the original Sharia Banking, where it was forbidden to use usurious interest and Usura debt economy? Guaranteed not! Because then they would have to confront the masterminds behind their designer version of Islam. Islam was actually the religion that has been the clearest in the spit in relation to Usura.
The same would apply to the Catholic Church, which has become wealthy through usury after it was allowed. It used to be condemned. But in general, the church and religion as a whole have always been able to bend the subject of morality and money.
In Judaism, it is bent (Exodus 22:25, Leviticus 25:35 and Deuteronomy 20:19) to the point that you may not take usurious interest from poor people or within the Jewish communities. One is also allowed to lie to non-Jews (goyim), so one is also allowed to cheat them.
In Christianity, it was forbidden for church people to take usury from the year 314 and for laymen from 1179. The Protestant founders Luther and Zwingli still condemned usury, but the crypto-Jew Calvin (Cohen) did not mind it, and he also became the new darling of the Venetians, after Luther was deemed to be a little too stiff in the cover. The same with Catholic reformists Collet and Antoine, but there had to be a reasonable ratio between the value of the loan now and in the future, i.e. a compensation for inflation and loss of purchasing power.
In the 1800s, the Catholic Church moved away from condemning usury, because it had meanwhile become dependent on it. It was the Catholic Church that helped bring Mussolini to power in return for re-establishing its status as a political entity and sovereign state. Banco Ambrosiano, whose main shareholder was the Vatican Bank (Institute per le Opere di Religione = Institute for Religious Work), collapsed in 1992 when it was exposed for its collaboration with the Mafia and the P2 lodge. ‘God’s banker’, Roberto Calvi, fiddled with the fascist Licio Gelli to finance everything from the Sandinistas in Nicaragua to Solidarność in Poland.
God’s banker. Isn’t it striking how capital and crime always go hand in hand?
Today, a Jesuit sits as Pope in the Vatican. Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio’s past is as a bishop in Buenos Aires during the Dirty War / Operation Condor, Argentina, where the Jesuits housed the junta’s intelligence service in their main building.
Read: The Black Pope
The black hole
One cannot understand capitalism without understanding how international banking is organized and how money is created. Let it be said with the utmost clarity: Neither the right nor the left have understood these two concepts to date.
If, on the other hand, you have understood what they are about, you also understand:
- What war is about
- What poverty is
- What postulated global shortage of resources is due to
- Why they say we have an energy crisis
- Why there is more debt in the world than can be paid
- AND why none of these are necessary