July 24, 2011

The Movement Path Toward Positive Freedom


Our most precious assets are political self-confidence and self-respect. With these, we can attempt and achieve the impossible. Without them we can do nothing. There’s no in between. One must have total confidence in the future. We can’t achieve this confidence through rational deliberation, rational education, all the tropes of the Enlightenment Myth. The movement must first speak to our souls in the language of goodness and right, and then in the language of our critical need.
And then it must present a plan, which to be sure partakes of reason, but which most of all inspires the will to fight and win. With this will, anything can be accomplished. Without it, nothing. In our case, reason and science are on our side, so we can enlist them as well. But in the end this is a political and spiritual war, and it will be fought and won on those battlefields. So all our efforts, all our words, all our actions, all our thoughts, must focus first of all on those fronts. This is an essential part of the movement discipline we must build.
As we understand the moral, rational, and practical truth of everything we know and do, the path in front of us shall become wider, straighter, better illuminated. Our fatigue shall evaporate, our pain shall flee, our desire to stop and rest shall transform to an impatience to keep going, faster. We shall feel ourselves walking the path of necessity. This is the paradoxical essence of the individual or cooperative group which discovers itself, its true mission, and the way to carry out that mission, under conditions of positive freedom. Indeed this is the essence of positive freedom itself – the more one achieves this freedom, the more one moves with unfailing certainty, in accord with the prerogative of necessity, every step clearly laid out before one.
Nietzsche was eloquent on this point:

[E]verything there is or has been on earth to do with freedom, refinement, boldness, dance, and masterly certainty, whether it is in thinking itself, or in governing, or in speaking and persuading, in arts just as much as in morals, developed only thanks to the “tyranny of such arbitrary laws,” and in all seriousness, the probability is not insignificant that this is “nature” and “natural”—and not that laisser aller! Every artist knows how far from the feeling of letting himself go his “most natural” condition is, the free ordering, setting, disposing, shaping in moments of “inspiration”—and how strictly and subtly he obeys at that very moment the thousand-fold laws which make fun of all conceptual formulations precisely because of their hardness and decisiveness (even the firmest idea, by comparison, contains something fluctuating, multiple, ambiguous—). The essential thing “in heaven and on earth,” so it appears, is, to make the point again, that there is obedience for a long time and in one direction: in the process there comes and always has come eventually something for whose sake living on earth is worthwhile, for example, virtue, art, virtue, music, dance, reason, spirituality—something or other transfiguring, subtle, amazing, and divine….

…that genuine philosophical association of a bold, exuberant spirituality, which speeds along presto, with a dialectical strictness and necessity which takes no false steps are unknown to most thinkers and scholars from their own experience, and hence, if someone wishes to talk about it in front of them, they find it implausible. They take the view that every necessity is a need, an awkward requirement to follow and to be compelled, and for them thinking itself is considered something slow, hesitant, almost labourious, and often enough “worth the sweat of the noble”—but under no circumstances something light, divine, closely related to dancing and high spirits! “Thinking” and “taking an issue seriously,” “considering it gravely”—among them these belong together: that’s the only way they have “experienced” thinking.—In such matters artists may have a more subtle sense of smell. They know only too well that at the very moment when they no longer create “arbitrarily” and make everything by necessity, their sense of freedom, refinement, authority, of creative setting up, disposing, and shaping is at its height—in short, that necessity and the “freedom of the will” are then one thing for them.

Beyond Good and Evil, sections 188 and 213.
Our movement philosophy, to resume and redeem the American Revolution: Positive democracy, the full opportunity for political participation in a dedicated common space, full management of economic production and distribution by the working people; food sovereignty in its fullest form; a full dispensation of useful possession/usufruct; anti-corporatism, anti-statism, anti-propertarianism; general relocalization; all this founded upon the values of community, of valuing oneself, one’s friends, family, community, and democracy above material greed; and upon values of cooperation, caring, integrity, and justice.
Can this philosophy stir the souls of humanity to the point that we achieve the full consciousness of positive freedom? I think it can, and the ideas are necessary and beautiful enough that it’s worth the attempt. One thing’s for sure, whether these ideas are true or not – there’s no truth left outside them. Everything outside them is wickedness, falsehood, stagnation, and blockage.
The regular possible, the pseudo-possible, what “progressives” call “pragmatic”, is in fact impossible, and is repulsive to our human dignity. It offers no way out. We reach agreement with the great theologians – only a miracle can bring salvation, so we believe in the miracle, and in that way produce it.
But our “miracle” is secular and rational as well, literally grounded in the soil. Our work awaits us. It won’t perform itself, but it will be both the catalyst and the productive vector of our self-respect and self-confidence, on the political and human level. By now these are synonyms. That’s how we’ll create these most precious assets, and that’s how we’ll use them, first to liberate ourselves, and then to build true freedom.


  1. Russ,

    I haven’t read your latest post yet, but am still checking in here every few days, or whenever I can find the time.

    Enjoyed your comments this morning at NC, especially the following lines during the discussion of MMT:

    attempter: “The simple fact is that kleptocracy will never do anything MMT says it should do.”


    “The result of all this is that, as much as I hate to say it, MMT ends up in the same category as the likes of, “We need better Democrats.” It’s (politically) impossible and merely a waste of time and energy.”

    I think this is a good analogy. In my opinion, the discussion of MMT is similar to the endless discussion that took place at Naked Capitalism concerning Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB. It wastes a lot of time and energy but ultimately leads nowhere.

    Just like the search for a better democrat, MMT is politically impossible. What is the point of discussing how wonderful things could be, if only Elizabeth Warren were head of the CFPB, if only our leaders were wise enough to implement MMT policies for the public good? In short, if only our leaders were not a bunch of lying, thieving, criminal bastards?

    Comment by Frank Lavarre — July 24, 2011 @ 10:03 am

    • It’s another kind of “special case” economics like Keynes said of neoclassical economics, ain’t it? The only difference is that neoclassicism is impossible even in theory, while MMT is impossible in political practice.

      Comment by Russ — July 24, 2011 @ 11:37 am

    • I decided to import this part of the comments, since it’s a good thumbnail of my perspective on this:

      I’m open to the argument that MMT can be a worthwhile educational tool. I guess the right way to frame it is: “Here’s what should be done, and what would work if government could work. But the fact that government refuses to do this, that it in fact does the opposite and systematically lies about what the problems are and what needs to be done, proves that this system cannot work. The same goes for the mainstream media.”

      That would square it with the fact of kleptocracy, and purge it of any sense that we should actually fight to enact it, as opposed to taking its political impossibility as more evidence that reformism itself is impossible.

      And I like it as part of the critique of propertarianism. To me the best use of it would be to follow through on its implication that all money is created by society in order to be used, that money has to have a high velocity, while hoarding it is illegitimate. This should be the main thrust of the education. And once this is established, it can be applied to all “property”. So in that way MMT could have worthwhile applications for principle.

      Comment by Russ — July 24, 2011 @ 11:41 am

      • Thanks for this clarification, Russ. I’ve cut down to visiting the Naked Capitalism site only once a week, so I’m unable to keep up with it anymore, but it seems to me like some form of MMT orthodoxy is taking over there. There seems to be less and less tolerance for anyone who expresses doubts with respect to MMT or anyone who tries to ask obvious questions, such as what good MMT is going to do for us in terms of fighting the kleptocracy.

        But perhaps I’m getting the wrong impression?

        Comment by Frank Lavarre — July 24, 2011 @ 6:02 pm

      • I don’t have that impression, Frank. Although I haven’t counted them, it seems to me that a preponderance of MMT comments are skeptical (like mine) or hostile. It seems to me that Yves is on the defensive with it.

        Let me be clear that if I were a reformist who believed representative government could be redeemed, then I’d be gung ho about MMT. It’s certainly “correct”, as a practical matter, constitutionally, and morally (given the representative premise). The kind of government which would take back the money, end the Fed, and ice out the banks would probably be the kind of government which would spend the money in a far more public-oriented way.

        But there is no such government, and there won’t be. That’s why pushing MMT as a goal to be enacted is a waste of time and effort. But it can be a good educational tool.

        While I’m at it, I might as well link my own MMT posts.



        Comment by Russ — July 24, 2011 @ 6:27 pm

  2. Russ,

    I couldn’t find your email contact so I will post my most recent analysis. I have no qualms if you delete because it is by no means an attempt to disagree with your beliefs. It’s a challenge of reality, if you see between the lines, that we both face. You would be surprised to know the basis of Nietzsche and the core of Marx were funded by this central power to undermine the liberal and rational intellectual.

    It’s a disheartening assessment yet it ascertains the realities as its premise. Please believe me when I state we are of the same belief, to the point where I struggle to grasp a real solution based on reality. At this juncture it would seem amorality will win this mortal fight.


    Conclusions on Modern Civilization-Part I-Schlesinger’s future and our reality today

    Don’t fight the change; realize the driving force for modern civilization has been winning the war for centuries. At times this monetary and credit control powerhouses may have lost a fight here or there, but rarely the war. As Arthur M. Schlesinger points out in 1947, The FUTURE OF SOCIALSM, III-THE PERSPECTIVE NOW, the socialist inclined powers, identified through Carroll Quigley’s, ‘The Anglo American Establishment’, man outside a small group of defined elite, is doomed to be controlled based upon their imperfect reasoning. Take these excerpts from Schlesinger as the rational that opposition is weak:

    “Capitalism at once has strengthened the economic centralization and loosened the moral bonds of society. The result is a profound instability which invites collectivism as a means of restoring social discipline. As Schumpeter put it, capitalism “socializes the middle class mind.” Eventually the roots of capitalist motivation will wither away.”

    “Official liberalism was the product of the enlightenment, cross-fertilized with such things as Unitarianism, science, bourgeois complacency, and a belief in progress. It dispensed with the absurd Christian myths of sin and damnation and believed that what shortcomings man might have were to be redeemed, not by Jesus on the cross, but by the benevolent unfolding of history. Tolerance, free inquiry, and technology, operating in the framework of human perfectibility, would be in the end create a heaven on earth, a goal accounted much more sensible and wholesome than a heaven in heaven.
    This rejection of the dark and subterranean forces in human nature acquired a kind of protective coloration in a century of peace and prosperity, like the nineteenth. Insight into evil became the property of a few disreputable aesthetes and a few obstinate Christians. But the rationalists were betrayed by their own god in the twentieth century when history went back on them and unleashed the terror. Freud, Kierkegaard, Sorel, Nietzsche had charted patterns of depravity while the sun of optimism was high in the sky. As it sank, practical men, like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, transformed depravity into a way of life.
    Much more than a generation divides the liberals who denied evil from those who accept it. The word “evil” is here a designation, not an explanation; but, whether you use the vocabulary of religion or psychoanalysis or antirationalism, whether you invoke Augustine or Freud or Pareto, there are moody and destructive impulses in man which official liberalism has taken no serious account. Louis Jaffe recently wrote of Justice Brandels, “One felt that nothing in his system prepared Brandels for Hitler.” Brandels was among the more realistic of his generation: how much more unprepared were the readers of the liberal weeklies, the great thinkers who sought to combat Nazism by peace strikes, the Oxford oath, and unilateral disarmament.
    The type of the official liberal today is the fellow traveler or the fellow traveler of the fellow traveler: see the columns of the New Republic and the Nation. For the most chivalrous reasons they cannot believe that ugly facts underlie fair words: however they look at it, for example, the U.S.S.R. keeps coming through as a kind of enlarged Brook Farm community. Nothing in their system has prepared them for Stalin. The official liberal differs from the Communist, who knows what he is doing. He differs from the New Dealer, who has learned some of the facts of life from the exercise of responsibility and is consequently deeply hostile to the Communist. The official liberal runs interference for the Communist with a system of intellectual evasion and subterfuge that results directly from a desperate attempt to square a superficial and optimistic creed with a bitter century.
    Many contemporary radicals have rejected these sunny meditations. Silone, Koestler, Malraux, Niebuhr, Orwell, Dos Passos, Hemingway, Macdonald; the very names suggest a range of perceptions and anxieties unknown to the columns of the New Republic. In this new version, man becomes at once greater and more pitiable, more aspiring, and more frustrated, more hallowed, and more doomed. This image stands up better in the century of Buchenwalk. But the men who are possessed by it are still under official malediction as tired liberals, Jadases, and apostles of disillusion.
    If you believe man to be essentially good, you commit yourself to the endless task of explaining why he does not always behave that way. A simple way out is to affirm that, in spite of appearances to the contrary, he really is performing the good. In the course of this solution the liberal intellectual generates myths which he comes to prefer to actualities, especially if the actualities are uncomfortable (as they usually are). The addiction to myth is of course increased by the fact that the liberal has denied himself such traditional outlets for credulity as religion.
    The susceptibility to wishfulness, the need for the sustaining myth, the disbelief in man’s urge to destroy—all combine to reduce the capacity for critical judgment which the intellectual’s detachment from social loyalties should confer upon him. This is the real trahison des clercs. Instead of contributing clarity, logic, and rigorous insistence on facts, the liberal intellectual has been more and more devoting his ingenuity to laminating his favorite myths. He has failed wretchedly to live up to his obligation to provide intellectual leadership.”

    Society is and has been structured for most civilizations but never with the appearance of today’s mass control and direction by the defined forces. For the dim witted control is easily executed with defined norms. Everything is spoon fed through social institutions and propaganda. The norm sees the manipulation of these institutions through daily life, recognize the corrosive force yet fail to act or unite on a mass scale against what they judge as amoral or immoral. For most, this loss of control is continually adjusted to over time and the next injustice again lamented, to no avail. A perpetual cycle of ineffectual observance clouded by their own active participation in its demise. Subservience, though with toothless protest in the grand scheme, fails to halt the machination of a new world order designed with authoritative, socialistic and oligarchy rule.

    For centuries we have been warned from prominent politicians, scholars, philosophers, educators, researchers, etc. upon these charges with little effect to counter measure this group’s actions (Myron Fagan – http://100777.com/myron). As Albert Pike noted, “Fictions are necessary to the people, and the Truth becomes deadly to those who are not strong enough to contemplate it in all its brilliance. In fact, what can there be in common between the vile multitude and sublime wisdom? The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason.” Each of the 25 points are an existing entity of mass scale linked to an irrefutable source, again noted by someone in the know, Carroll Quigley. Simply they are the purest of truth underlined in all layers of deceit, half-truths, and lies most of us remain enslaved to.

    It’s senseless to expouse on each point, both historical and current, since the masses neither have time, inclination, or belief to the magnitude they are already being led to this pinnacle. Rather the masses absorb a great deal of energy on life, whereas the concern of and for money is the primary drive to existence. Money equates to freedom and livelihood. Therefore the general masses remain attentive to the gradual dessimation of their civilization yet ultimately cannot act due to the bond they and generations have been enslaved through monetary control/debt and the control of our social institutions.

    On a global level one only needs to research Perkins, or other economic hitmen. Yugoslavia, documented in ‘Weight of Chains 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qi50Mun4RA, is the face of the force, using the 25 points below, America and the masses face around the world. How much easier will it be to garner control when RFID chips are implanted into citizens, ID’s, property, currency, etc. The disadvantage appears insurmountable.

    Therefore it’s senseless to even presume effective change is possible.

    The 25 point doctrine set in motion, 1773 http://nationalisttruth1.blogspot.com/2008/07/rothschild-25-point-plan-for-world.html can be matched point by point to today’s realities.


    1. Use violence and terrorism rather than academic discussions.

    2. Preach “Liberalism” to usurp political power.

    3. Initiate class warfare.

    4. Politicians must be cunning and deceptive – any moral code leaves a politician vulnerable.

    5. Dismantle “existing forces of order and regulation.” Reconstruct all existing institutions.”

    6. Remain invisible until the very moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning or force can undermine it.

    7. Use Mob Psychology to control the masses. “Without absolute despotism one cannot rule efficiently.”

    8. Advocate the use of alcoholic liquors, drugs, moral corruption and all forms of vice, used systematically by “agenteurs” to corrupt the youth.

    9. Seize properties by any means to secure submission and sovereignty.

    10. Foment wars and control the peace conferences so that neither of the combatants gains territory placing them further in debt and therefore into our power.

    11. Choose candidates for public office who will be “servile and obedient to our commands, so they may be readily used as pawns in our game.”

    12. Use the Press for propaganda to control all outlets of public information, while remaining in the shadows, clear of blame.

    13. Make the masses believe they had been the prey of criminals. Then restore order to appear as the saviors.

    14. Create financial panics. Use hunger to control to subjugate the masses.

    15. Infiltrate Freemasonry to take advantage of the Grand Orient Lodges to cloak the true nature of their work in philanthropy. Spread their atheistic-materialistic ideology amongst the “Goyim” (gentiles).

    16. When the hour strikes for our sovereign lord of the entire World to be crowned, their influence will banish everything that might stand in his way.

    17. Use systematic deception, high-sounding phrases and popular slogans. “The opposite of what has been promised can always be done afterwards… That is of no consequence.”

    18. A Reign of Terror is the most economical way to bring about speedy subjection.

    19. Masquerade as political, financial and economic advisers to carry out our mandates with Diplomacy and without fear of exposing “the secret power behind national and international affairs.”

    20. Ultimate world government is the goal. It will be necessary to establish huge monopolies, so even the largest fortunes of the Goyim will depend on us to such an extent that they will go to the bottom together with the credit of their governments on the day after the great political smash.”

    21. Use economic warfare. Rob the “Goyim” of their landed properties and industries with a combination of high taxes and unfair competition.

    22. “Make the ‘Goyim’ destroy each other so there will only be the proletariat left in the world, with a few millionaires devoted to our cause, and sufficient police and soldiers to protect our interest.”

    23. Call it The New Order. Appoint a Dictator.

    24. Fool, bemuse and corrupt the younger members of society by teaching them theories and principles we know to be false.

    25 Twist national and international laws into a contradiction which first masks the law and afterwards hides it altogether. Substitute arbitration for law.”

    Prepare your children and future generations for subservience. Any other argument is not rational. We have no intellectual leadership with force to reshape the current trajectory.

    Comment by Kraig Peterson — July 24, 2011 @ 10:43 am

    • It looks like alot of that is lifted from the Protocols of Zion. While it’s certainly true of corporatists in general and banksters in particular, I don’t think “the Jews” are particularly responsible for it. Plenty of WASP banksters.

      Comment by Russ — July 24, 2011 @ 11:48 am

      • Yeah, it’s pretty easy to spot the ideological roots of the Birchers and present day NWO theorists. The funny thing is that much of the rest of what such folks believe actually helps perpetuate what they claim to abhor. By accepting only a portion of the truth, they miss the big lie.

        Comment by Tao Jonesing — July 24, 2011 @ 2:27 pm

      • Russ and Tsao.

        Please oblige me to either read or research a source of information to move beyond your skepticism. I linked the Yugoslavia documentary as it clearly demonstrates, in brutal fashion, that Schlesinger and Quigley weren’t far off in their writings. When a force like Rothschild’s fortunes are estimated in the $70-100 trillion range then I would think logic dictates that history can show how they accumulated such wealth and how that power is employed in today’s world. I referenced Quigley and Schlesinger, who both were esteemed rational intellectuals, on recording and interpreting history.

        A Quigley perspective is nearly written entirely from documents and research. Schlesinger’s interpretations make me cringe but he points out the fallacy of existing belief systems, both individually and nationally. I think there is enough reference throughout the past 300 years by noted figures, to make clear a World Order is not folklore. Linking power to Jews or Zionists is a mistake. Rockefeller and Morgan weren’t Jews, at least that I know of. But you will find their names and Rothschild’s name on ownership of our privately owned Federal Reserve (refer to http://www.scribd.com/doc/13044740/Chart-of-Who-Owns-the-Federal-Reserve). This again is fact. Refer to Jackson, Franklin, Lincoln, Wilson…just a few of many…who make clear the central bank’s power and intentions. Better yet, refer to the banks themselves and recorded history. There are indisputable brutal threats and actions made on their behalf against nations.

        So if you dispute facts please help me learn where the fallacies are, as I’ve learned and presented. I don’t care if you refer to me as a nutter, conspiracy theorist, ‘such folks’ or anything else. Please leave some meaningful and substantiated facts on the table. Schlesinger’s words are a slap to my face. “Instead of contributing clarity, logic, and rigorous insistence on facts, the liberal intellectual has been more and more devoting his ingenuity to laminating his favorite myths. He has failed wretchedly to live up to his obligation to provide intellectual leadership.” I sadly believe him to be more correct than not.

        Schlesinger also wrote in his 1947 the below statement. The only difference from his wording and today is government hands off the ownership they obtain to privatization. Banks, whether the Central, World or IMF are usually found as primary players (again I refer one example in pre and post Yugoslavia}.

        “There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals. In 1933, Frances Perkins has reported, the coal operators pleaded with the Government to nationalize the mines. They offered to sell “to the Government at any price fixed by the Government. Anything so we can get out of it.” The Government was not ready to take over the coal mines in 1933, as it was not ready to take over the banks, as it was not ready to keep the railroads in 1919. But the New Deal greatly enlarged the reserves of trained personnel; the mobilization of industry during the war provided more experience; and the next depression will certainly mean a vast expansion in Government ownership and control. The private owners will not only acquiesce in this, in characteristic capitalist panic, they will demand it.

        Socialism, then, appears quite practicable within this frame of reference, as a long-term proposition. Its gradual advance might well preserve order and law, keep enough internal checks and discontinuities to guarantee a measure of freedom, and evolve new and real forms for the expression of democracy. The active agents in effecting the transition will probably be, not the working class, but some combination of lawyers, business and labor managers, politicians, and intellectuals, in the manner of the first New Deal, or of the Labor government in Britain.”

        So when I conclude that subservience is inevitable, that’s the last thing I want for myself, family or anyone. Yet look at reality then ask yourself why we don’t have a $100 trillion dollars to dictate our own beliefs rather than be the recipient of those beliefs? Especially from a dynasty that claims above all else, war is profitable. I’m begging for an answer because benevolence is losing out to a stronger opponent. Nearly every ideal you write of is failing. That is the unfortunate truth.

        Comment by Kraig Peterson — July 24, 2011 @ 7:42 pm

      • Oddly, your comments led me to revisit the ‘Naked Capitalism’ blog and read the posts/comments to get a pulse. Its informative in thought but overall it lacks a holistic approach to the entire system, which historians or researchers like Quigley, Mullins and Sutton employ.

        After looking at Yves’ book intro, the opening quote from JFK “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought”, was obviously written by Schlesinger himself twenty years later. I wonder if Yves knew who he was really quoting. I’m not a fan of Schlesinger or his arrogance but his brilliance cannot be denied.

        Additionally, Carroll Quigley wrote ‘The Naked Capitalist’. I haven’t read ‘Econned’ and this particular book by Quigley yet, nor do I know much about the writings. I do find it ironic to be looped in this circle.

        And I didn’t know this until you associated Birchers with my position, which was incorrect, since Carroll Quigley isn’t a Bircher. Quigley publicly opposed how the Birchers misrepresented him. http://www.carrollquigley.net/biography/The-Professor-Who-Knew-Too-Much.htm What I twice now have clarified, I only found that Welch’s particular speech was well worth listening while knowing very little of the Birch Society myself. Unlike most, I read Quigley and I do not selectively quote him for effect. The depth of his knowledge is an injustice in this manner.

        Last, I present just a smidgeon of historical context to the association between the Central Bank and World Order. I do concede identifying Rothschild’s exact wealth is an inexact science, since it is partitioned off into corporations, trusts and places I can’t imagine, however it eclipses any of the Forbes names as richest man in the world, where he doesn’t even appear, along with other notable bankers like Rockefeller or Warburg. My estimation comes from “Retired management consultant Gaylon Ross Sr, author of Who’s Who of the Global Elite, has been tipped from a private source that the combined wealth of the Rockefeller family in 1998 was approx (US) $11 trillion and the Rothschilds (U.S.) $100 trillion.”

        HISTORICAL CONTEXT (Warburg and Rockefeller families are private stockholders of our Federal Reserve)

        “One way or another we will have world government. The question is whether it will be by consent or by conquest.” – James Paul Warburg, co-author of the Federal Reserve act.

        “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wakeup homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” -Thomas Jefferson.

        “The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” – Caroll Quigley. Author of Tragedy & Hope.

        “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” -David Rockefeller.

        In 2002 Rockefeller authored his autobiography “Memoirs” wherein, on page 405, Mr. Rockefeller writes: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I AM PROUD OF IT.”

        Comment by Kraig Peterson — July 24, 2011 @ 11:36 pm

      • Kraig, no one here supports central banks. We regard them as instruments of tyranny, just as you do.

        However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with “socialism”. Socialism means at least public ownership of the means of production (even if, unfortunately, it doesn’t necessarily mean worker control). That’s its definition. So by definition what we’re talking about here is not socialism.

        Corporatism, AKA the economic aspect of fascism, means a command economy which maintains private rents and is devoted to maximizing them. That’s clearly what we’re dealing with here. That’s what central banks are meant to administer.

        Comment by Russ — July 25, 2011 @ 2:23 am

      • “Linking power to Jews or Zionists is a mistake.”

        So why are you citing, at length, a passage dealing with a purported global Jewish conspiracy (hence the references to gentiles and goyim) from noted anti-semite William Guy Carr’s “Pawns in the Game”, which itself approvingly quotes and is in part derived from “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”? I mean, if you’re going to toss around classic conspiracy theory literature, and you’re genuinely not interested in implicating Jews, you could at least avoid the obvious blood libel stuff?

        Comment by paper mac — July 25, 2011 @ 2:32 am

      • Russ, beyond for adding your knowledge thanks for leading me to Naked Capitalist again and eventually to ‘Crooked Timber’. I’ve fallen from the shallow end into the deep. Without question, this is beyond my realm. Yet it has little bearing on my observations, which welcome more facts. And helping me does no harm, even if it is critical on my analysis, if you provide something for me to absorb and reassess. Tao, I found some of your posts at Naked Capitalist and I did absorb your comments on MMT, which I know very little. jwbeene, I’ll minimally be watching Brown’s 2008 presentation given in Michigan.

        Russ, my interpretation is Schlesinger was introducing a hybrid socialism, which surely could be twisted like a pretzel in many facets, and to read excerpts does not make clear the intended audience were potentially powerful men whom either felt this way already or subscribed to Schlesinger’s perspective. I do think it’s more aligned with economic fascism but from my limited knowledge I’m the last to be an expert. Again, I see the end result, however one may describe it in economic or political term, I look at outcomes. Yugoslavia makes a strong case study of end result when a nation is destabilized and restructured through global politics, which so far has been shown to be a rather conniving force of controlled chaos, and then handed off to the corporations. It’s no surprise the power elite core of central banks, IMF and World Banks are also vested into the corporations and the machinations to the overall process, from the accounts I’ve studied. And I comprehend the multifaceted benefits of control it gives to the power elite with no regard to the human facet. Scary since this is not the exception but norm to globalizing expansion. Perkins explains best while a study of Sutton’s research makes clear the association of Wall Street powers and bankers during WWI and WWII.

        paper mac, Like the Birches did to Quigley’s work, one can extrapolate their own terms. If I wanted to implicate the Jews then I would of led with Benjamin Freedman’s speech of 1961, who sat in the backroom meetings with the power elite and politicians, or Myron Fagan. I interpret Freedman’s outrage expressed was the betrayal by a small faction of Jews who misrepresented the ideals of its masses towards. In research I found Ezra Pound’s admit in later years his own error of generalizing. “My worst mistake was the stupid suburban prejudice of anti-Semitism, all along.” Otherwise, I would refer to the more concrete evidence presented by historians regarding The Balfour Declaration of 1917 and how it was derived. When the Rothschilds allowed the U.S. and European Central Banks to not shy away from supporting Germany and the opposing forces. The Rothschilds’ involvement in major wars, to date, have never stopped funding wars based on moral, patriotic or religious grounds. Allegiance appears more inline with the 25 points and historical quips from the most influential Rothschild of the time, Nathan, emphasizing power via monetary control.


        From Benjamin Freedman 1961: “Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was “confidential man” to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the finance committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson’s brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their “commonwealth.” They’ve fooled you so much that you don’t know whether you’re coming or going.” http://www.keepthetruthalive.com/2006/08/benjamin-h-freedman-1961-speech.html

        Professor Carroll Quigley, “Probably no document of the wartime period, except Wilson’s Fourteen Points, has given rise to more disputes than this brief statement of less than eleven lines. Much of the controversy arises from the belief that it promised something to somebody and that this promise was in conflict with other promises, notably with the “McMahon Pledge” to Sherif Hussein. The Balfour Declaration took the form of a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild. one of the leading figures in the British Zionist movement. This movement … had aspirations for creating in Palestine … some territory to which refugees from anti-Semitic persecution or other Jews could go to find a national home.”

        The New York Times, April 1, 1915 reported that in 1914, Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild went to court to suppress Ignatius Balla’s book on the grounds that the Waterloo story about his grandfather was untrue and libelous. The court ruled that the story was true, dismissed Rothschild’s suit, and ordered him to pay all costs. The New York Times noted in this story that “The total Rothschild wealth has been estimated at $2 billion.” A previous story in The New York Times (May 27, 1905) noted that Baron Alphonse de Rothschild, head of the French house of Rothschild, possessed $60 million in American securities in his fortune, although the Rothschilds reputedly were not active in the American field. This explains why their agent, J.P. Morgan, had only $19 million in securities in his estate when he died in 1913, and securities handled by Morgan were actually owned by his employer, Rothschild.”

        Comment by Kraig Peterson — July 25, 2011 @ 4:50 am

      • “paper mac, Like the Birches did to Quigley’s work, one can extrapolate their own terms.”

        LOL, ok. In other words, you’re willing to credulously regurgitate, unmodified, absolutely any textual source that supports your “argument”. This apparently includes material like Carr’s red-baiting, anti-semitic book that everyone, outside of a few hard-core neo-Nazis and paranoid schizophrenics, correctly regards as entirely fictional. If you’re wondering why you’re not getting more good-faith engagement with whatever it is you’re trying to convey, you should probably try raising your evidentiary standards a few notches. It also helps to avoid linking white supremacist blogs with obvious names like “Nationalist Truth” and repeatedly referencing supposed zionist financier plots. If you think you can sift out the anti-semitic prejudice from these “sources”, I would strongly urge you to get a clue. No one here is unfamiliar with these kinds of “theories” about shadowy cabals (not necessarily of Jews, we swear!) running the world, and it’s pretty fucking insulting to have obviously racist garbage trotted out as though there’s some fascinating kernel of truth in there that we just haven’t considered closely enough.

        Comment by paper mac — July 25, 2011 @ 2:20 pm

      • paper mac, my error is being ignorant and I say that truthfully. I’ve stumbled in here with no realization of the knowledge all of you possess. Plastered information all of you probably have read more times than not. A grave error in many respects. Yesterday’s paper has more originality than me and it was irresponsible. I think Russ and others were kind to me by not pointing out my faux pax sooner. I’d best serve myself and others by being more knowledgeable. Otherwise paper mac, I’m no more a neo-natzi then Quigley was and possibly I disservice him by putting him in this context within my garbled regurgitation.

        Russ, it may be in the best interest of your community and the quality of your board to delete my comments. They have no place for these type of discussions. I’ve much to learn and should speak less and listen more. For that lesson I’m grateful, paper mac.

        Comment by Kraig Peterson — July 25, 2011 @ 4:55 pm

  3. Our movement philosophy, to resume and redeem the American Revolution: Positive democracy, the full opportunity for political participation in a dedicated common space, full management of economic production and distribution by the working people; food sovereignty in its fullest form; a full dispensation of useful possession/usufruct; anti-corporatism, anti-statism, anti-propertarianism; general relocalization; all this founded upon the values of community, of valuing oneself, one’s friends, family, community, and democracy above material greed; and upon values of cooperation, caring, integrity, and justice.

    I’d define things in a purely positive way to make the “antis-” inherent. Defining things negatively allows others to define you as something different than you are.

    Also, are you defining a “movement philosophy” or movement goals? What I see are goals, and I think that’s good, as philosophies are merely abstractions that distort our understanding of reality and create the illusion of conflict that ultimately becomes real. The goals should be universal and transcend all current belief systems/philosophies, and I think you’ve made a good start here. The biggest problem you face is language itself, as too many of the words we use have become iconic and are subject to different interpretations depending on the observer’s belief system.

    Comment by Tao Jonesing — July 24, 2011 @ 2:44 pm

    • True, I prefer positive to negative language. But I figure embedding a few negatives within a list of positives ought to be intelligible. Besides, although “anti-government” can easily be misconstrued (which is part of the reason I wrote “anti-state”, which isn’t as commonly used by tea party types), it’s hard to misunderstand anti-corporate or anti-property. (For example, sometimes it’s not immediately evident what a new website’s ideology is. But I take it as a rule of thumb that if it’s aggressively anti-corporate, it’s probably on the right track. I don’t assume that if the main focus is anti-government.)

      I suppose you’re right, that’s a list of goals rather than a philosophy. In my mind there’s no difference between the two: No difference between considering something morally and rationally desirable on a philosophical level, and immediately seeing and demanding it as a goal to be fought for. I immediately functionalize all inputs and put them back out as action goals. I also think that democracy is a verb, freedom is a verb. They have no existence outside of democratic actions, the exercise of freedom. There’s no such thing as a democratic citizen, a free human being, who is inert. (That’s why I’ve always winced at sayings like “the only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”, or “the best lack all conviction”. The measure of a good person is good action, so by definition anyone who does nothing is not among the good. Similarly, by definition the best are full of conviction and the will to fight on behalf of the good. Otherwise, they can hardly be “the best”, can they?)

      But sometimes I forget that not everyone sees it that way yet, and that in my writing I’ll need to make some purely philosophical appeals (in order to help convince people that the action is necessary).

      You’re right about how the language deck is stacked against us. To this day people completely misunderstand Nietzsche because they misunderstand his revaluations of words. That was a major part of his project, and now we face the same challenge.

      Comment by Russ — July 24, 2011 @ 4:25 pm

  4. Kraig thanks for some great information and particularly for having this in you’re post.
    “This again is fact. Refer to Jackson, Franklin, Lincoln, Wilson…just a few of many…who make clear the central bank’s power and intentions.”

    I became interested in this area after reading The Web of Debt by Brown, which has a formula that would get the USA out of debt in a couple of years.


    Comment by jwbeene — July 24, 2011 @ 8:41 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: