Alex Jones, Maximum Hypocrite & Hegemonist

by Serban V.C. Enache

I write this blog post after listening to the Alex Jones show on internet radio. I’m so disgusted by Jones’ blatant hypocrisy and supremacist stances, it’s not even funny.

First, Alex Jones spoke with orgasmic vigor about Trump’s offer to buy Greenland. Jones invoked American Manifest Destiny, the ‘superior’ American creed, and how smart from a business perspective the whole venture is. This is the same Alex Jones who will criticize with fervent zeal foreign states and foreign firms who come into the US looking to buy politicians, law makers, firms of all kinds, and land. Jones will call waves of migrants and refugees seeking to enter the US, legally or not, as invaders – but he staunchly promotes the idea of Yankees colonizing Greenland. He didn’t shy away from using the verb – “to colonize.” In fact, Jones, per his usual sophistry, repeated several times the age of those inhabitants of Greenland, with the aim to downplay hundreds of years of history as not being comparable to thousands of years – even though the USA doesn’t even come close to matching those seven centuries he invoked. Imagine the reaction of Greenlanders, if any of them heard Jones’ designs for their country: US capital coming in to buy their land, US immigrants coming in to settle and push them out, US corporations coming in to extract resources and destroy the environment.

Then Jones moved on to another subject. He tried to disculpate himself from accusations levied at him for being a Zionist shill. Jones said that’s the litmus test, the place where the Far Right and the Far Left agree on. Jones confessed to being pro-Israel, that he adopted this stance after hearing all the criticism against Apartheid Israel, which he deems unfair. Jones compared Israel’s situation [with the Palestinians] with racism in America, implying that it’s all a SJW fabrication – as if the two things are even comparable. By stating that “Saudi Arabia doesn’t take in one Palestinian,” Jones again implies that Palestinians must be a menace. I wonder if he uses the same logic to Syrian refugees… At any rate, this claim of his is a lie. Around 240,000 Palestinians live in Saudi Arabia. That being said, Palestinians are the sole foreign group that cannot benefit from a 2004 law, which entitles expatriates of all nationalities who have resided in the kingdom for ten years to apply for citizenship.

Jones also didn’t miss another opportunity to slander Ilhan Omar, saying she’s silent on Saudi Arabia’s track record on human rights abuse. Omar has made statements condemning Saudi Arabia; and Saudi-sponsored news outlets attacked her for it. To say she’s a hypocrite on this issue [on violent, despotic, corrupt Islamic regimes] is fake news – the same fake news tactics Alex Jones deplores when Trump’s the target. Using the Zionist playbook word for word, Jones insisted that Israel’s critics all have the same view, that Israel hasn’t the right to exist, which is a complete straw man. But Jones has no shame in using the same card employed by the enemy, in the logic that a lie told often enough becomes truth. Alex Jones also touched on the lie of WMDs in Iraq – but he never attacks Bibi, one of the biggest pushers of that myth and one of the biggest lobbyists for the US Government to send US soldiers to kill and die in Iraq – a country which had nothing to do with the 9/11 operation. No. To Alex Jones, Benjamin Netanyahu is the good guy. In fact, US military presence in the Middle East is all about serving the geopolitical interests of Israel and the Gulf states. Jones has no problem with the US military acting as a stooge for the former state actor, though.

Alex Jones is another snake-oil salesman, an utterly heinous, filth of a creature, fake Christian, and fake patriot. He’s a Globalist all day long, except that, unlike the cosmopolitical factions at work, he only supports a particular brand of world order; when the USA snaps its fingers, all other countries dance: US-First Global Hegemony.

The Upside of Protectionism

by Serban V.C. Enache

While everyone is bemoaning the US Administration raising tariffs on the ‘usual suspects’ and placing new tariffs on new players, like India, nobody’s talking about the situation’s upside or the upside’s potential to grow over time.

We constantly hear the mainstream bang in our heads the importance of trade, international trade in particular – bilateral agreements being seen as out of fashion. But we rarely hear the domestic market being brought up at all. Aren’t countries exposing themselves to numerous risks of varying degrees and different natures by allowing the unhindered flow of international capital to dictate their fate? Aren’t we, the people at grassroots, tired of politicians apologizing to trans-national companies about how they can’t give them sufficient tax breaks and other privileges in order to sway them to dismantle operations somewhere else and open them up here? Aren’t we tired with corporations outsourcing every little thing? Aren’t we tired of the narrow-minded focus on lowering costs while completely ignoring the necessity of giving people good jobs that pay big wages, from which workers can spend enough to secure better lives [without needing to use credit cards] while also allowing them to leave some money idle on their balance sheet for rainy days? [i.e. to postpone consumption into the future].

The home market is the most important of any nation, and for decades the prevailing orthodoxy is that capital knows best, that capital subservient to the Globalist outlook of world affairs. It’s dangerous to allow people to vote on their own fate. It’s dangerous to give people bargaining power, because then the State will surely become tyrannical as a result, will ‘oppress’ big capital, and that tariffs and Government industrial subsidies just end up raising prices, hurting the poor the most. I’m tired of this false empathy. The same analysts who are shedding [crocodile] tears for the poor and slamming tariffs are the same ones who, for decades, have relentlessly tried to conflate the stock-market with the real economy. Manufacturing jobs are vanishing? That’s great for the country, because the stock-market’s going up. Wages are stagnating, while big corporations have record profit? That’s great, because the stock-market’s going up and you can import very cheaply from China. Who decides international trade? Some democratic, accountable, and transparent forum? Of course not.

Richard Wolff, a Marxian economist, often tries to confuse the audience by conflating tariffs with economic warfare, citing WW1 and WW2 as the byproduct. It’s nothing short of sophistry. A tariff is slapped on foreign goods meant for the domestic market, with the aim to protect the market share of domestic firms and thus grow domestic industry, in both size and specializations [diversification]. It’s not the same as economic warfare. It’s not the same as stopping foreign economic agents and states from doing business [buying and selling] with third parties. It’s not the same as freezing or confiscating assets owned by foreign entities. It’s not the same as denying foreign shippers the right of passage or the right to dock, or seizing their cargo.

The argument about how much revenue tariffs can or can’t bring in is a red herring. The purpose of Government money taxation is threefold: a) to create permanent demand for Government currency, giving it thus extrinsic value, and allowing the Government to provision itself with labor and materials b) to drain income out of the economy, regulating thus the levels of Aggregate Demand and keeping prices in check c) to penalize and or incentivize various socio-economic activities and behaviors.

With the right type of taxation in place, economic agents pursue productive [wealth creative] activities, as opposed to unproductive ones [wealth extractive], and they are thus able to meet their tax obligations. The State’s goal should be wealth creation, full employment, and price stability. Real constraints for a sovereign state are: available land, available labor, available materials, and technology level. There will always be enough Government funds for this project or that program, so long as there’s political will for it.

Aren’t we tired of demand leakages at home, which make the country run far below maximum capacity? Aren’t we tired of exporting net aggregate demand, so that foreign actors can use those funds to bid up our asset prices? Aren’t we tired to compete against foreign enterprises who underpay and overwork their labor and rape the environment? Aren’t we tired of eroding national sovereignty by surrendering more and more of the country’s economy to trans-national, foreign interests? Let’s have businesses, large and small, invest in capital equipment and labor training, instead of expecting the State to do all the heavy lifting by itself, so that capital can get away with higher and higher markups while investing less and less. Let’s promote an economy in which land and labor are placed before finance – and in which finance serves public purpose, instead of subverting it.

Comparative advantage is a state of affairs that works for the wealthy. So-called free trade has worked out great for those at the top, but not for those at the bottom. Mainstream media and mainstream think tanks portray less educated workers as stupid and dangerous [dangerous for the well-to-do woke], because they favor tariffs. They never mention the fact that this particular trade policy falsely touted as “free” has been used as a most proficient weapon against them in class warfare. Offshoring and outsourcing didn’t lower total production costs. More so, the national system of production was rendered more vulnerable and risky [in civilian and martial terms] when we take into account the loss of critical manufacturing facilities and know-how.

“Free” trade was quite good in transferring income from labor [direct human production factors] to the managerial classes. The lower working classes aren’t stupid or insane. They recognize the changes of the last two decades haven’t helped them and wish for a new deal. China’s admission to the WTO, in spite of it not meeting the criteria, was a big factor in the decline of manufacturing jobs.

Liberals and SJWs who insist the Trump phenomenon was caused by the racism of white, straight, men in the US are lying through their teeth. While much focus was put by Trump, Sanders, and others on NAFTA for its negative impact on US jobs, the major culprit was China. Many US factories that moved to Mexico did so in the logic of matching prices from China.

Professor Brad DeLong explained how the Ricardian [mythology] view is unrealistic and why it favors the rich.

“[…] comparative advantage is the ideology of a market system that works for the interest of the wealthy. For comparative advantage is the market economy on the international scale, and the market economy is […] a collective human device for satisfying the wants of the well off, and the well off are those who control the scarce resources that are useful for producing things for which the rich of the world have a serious jones [fixation].”

In the early ’90s, more and more manufacturing jobs in the United States went overseas. The trend amplified, as entry-level jobs in some white-collar professions like the law now share the same fate. In the realm of software, few positions are left in the US, which will be ceded to experts in India, because the ideological consensus holds that the training of a new generation of specialists at home is untenable. Meanwhile, countries like China, South Korea, and Japan – who practice protectionism – don’t have to worry about such issues. “Protectionism causes depression” is nothing short of fear-mongering. People at grassroots recognize this scam without being savvy in trade and econ theory. They vote on instinct and their instinct is correct.

Mainstream economics, the foundation of policy-making in most countries, isn’t grounded in scholarship. It’s propaganda, highly valued bs because its proponents put out fancy equations when challenged. There’s nothing wrong with their math, but everything’s wrong with their assumptions. See one stark example here.

Tariffs are one way to strive for economic and geopolitical independence, but they’re just an instrument. The larger scheme has to rest on investment, training, diversification, and development. A nation’s true wealth rests in the full and multifaceted development of its productive powers, not its current exchange values. A nation must never sacrifice the former for the latter, for the promise it will be assured an important and comfy role as a mere cog in the grand scheme of Globalization. Autarky or efforts toward autarky have been described by the mainstream and the wannabe anti-mainstream as the goal of racists, nazis or fascists, and misanthropes.

The hypocrisy is telling, no? It’s good for a household to be independent from the grid [from everyone else] in terms of electricity; but when countries attempt economic independence [through their State institutions and policies], it’s bad and dangerous – it’s a case of tyrannical Government, led by racist extremists. According to these enlightened Globalists [some of whom are capitalists, some socialists, and others, mixed – like DiEM25], a country, any country, should always be dependent on another’s labor, another’s equipment, another’s fuel, another’s know-how, another’s military. To try and minimize those relations of interdependence is a crime… a declaration of war against civilization itself. To these humanist jackals I say, don’t worry, you’ll all get comfy, prestigious jobs as controlled opposition in the next paradigm; so spare us the hyperbole, the doomsday scenarios, and your demonization of independent, national, political economies.

Why Alex Jones is a Fake Anti-Globalist

by Serban V.C. Enache

Disclaimer. I’ve never been a fan of paleoconservatism, and I’ve never held Alex Jones’ brand of journalism in high regard. That being said, he did do good things in his career, he did fight the so-called ‘good fight’ for a time; and I didn’t hold back to give him credit when he had good ideas. Like in the case of public utility social media; and I was opposed to him being deplatformed. Unfortunately, Jones’ channel has become a cesspool of hawkish intoxication. I’ve been watching his show up on Infowars for a good many weeks now, and I’ve made a personal, final assessment on the narrative he’s pushing.

I’ll make a list of points and, if readers disagree, they can watch or listen to Infowars to see that I’m not arguing a strawman or making stuff up. By the way, I love Gerald Celente’s segment on Infowars. He’s great.

Alex Jones says that Iran could have been permitted to have a nuclear bomb by now, if Iran didn’t threaten nuking people all the time. And Jones questions whether or not the first oil tanker incidents were false-flags. He is inclined to believe that Iran may have been behind them, because the Iranians “are crazy.”

Sometimes Jones makes funny voices to ridicule various people he dislikes. One of those voices he does sounds awfully close to Netanyahu’s. There’s nothing wrong with that, albeit it’s ironic, given the fact that Jones and Infowars have shilled so much for Israel and Netanyahu. Jones claims that the Rothschilds [and by implication the Globalists] want Netanyahu dead. As always, Jones finds the ‘enemy’ only on the Israeli left; because the Israeli ‘right’ are incapable of pulling off dishonorable deeds, no? Israel, under the Netanyahu administration, is selling technology, including military technology to China – to the “Chicoms” [Communist Chinese] as Jones calls them. Yet you won’t hear Jones mentioning this fact, let alone criticizing it. In fact, Jones will go out of his way to cut off callers or people he’s interviewing, if the dialog hints at putting the spotlight on Israeli meddling and crimes.

Alex Jones thinks the Palestinians are “invaders,” who are all about invading other people’s lands. He said that even those Palestinians who had their land taken away are invaders – and Jones said “quote” in the sense that they really weren’t push off the land [by American and European Jewish immigrants to Palestine]. What a travesty. So much bile, so much ignorance and manufacturing of history.

Alex Jones believes the Globalists have cornered the US, trapped it into an inevitable war with China. Last time I checked, there were no Chinese military units in proximity to US borders, land or sea. Rather, it’s the other way around. And he always demonizes China for what US secret services and US big tech are doing, not just in the US, but in foreign countries, including allied states. Jones is more concerned with a spy agent from another continent, than he is about the spy in his own country. As if Xi Jinping and the Communist Party of China were responsible for US companies deplatforming him. China is militarily encircled by the US, and Jones would have Americans believed the Chinese are an existential threat to the United States. Whether he realizes it or not, Jones is making the case for US hegemonic [imperialist] policy and wants it strengthened.

Alex Jones keeps pushing the “socialism kills” narrative, and often cites Venezuela as the perfect example of this; but just as you might expect, makes no mention of how US sanctions [levied by the Trump Administration two years ago, combined with Western European sanctions and confiscation of Venezuelan assets abroad] impact the daily lives of ordinary Venezuelans. If all the blame lies with Maduro’s party, why would you support sanctions against that country? It’s like seeing a handicapped person on the street, and then tripping him up to fall flat on his face and break his nose and teeth. Instead of condemning US-sponsored regime changes in South America and US-led economic warfare against these countries, Jones is silent as a snake. But then likes to complain about foreigners storming the border and lays all the blame on Soros propaganda outlets, enticing foreigners to come to the US, where they’ll be given free stuff. Isn’t Alex Jones and his ilk part of the problem on this issue? You know, the two sides of the same coin? The two wings of the same bird?

Alex Jones often puts up scenarios in which the [conservative] people in the US will rise up to overthrow the tyrannical Government. He’s made numerous statements, albeit of a theoretical nature, that someone has to intervene with a gun to stop what he deems an injustice. Infowars features written and audio-video material about a coming civil war in the United States, triggered by the leftists, the liberals, the communists… While Jones is clever enough to put disclaimers, “I’m not saying launch an offensive war,” his narrative ultimately radicalizes conservatives. He’s using the same tactics Antifa uses, and then blames Antifa for fomenting “terrorists” and “terrorism.” It is staunch hypocrisy and he can’t claim the moral high ground.

Alex Jones used to criticize the bubble economy; the economy that’s kept from tanking via “artificial” means. But now, since Trump’s in office, Jones is attacking others for making the same criticisms. Jones labels this as a conspiracy to kill confidence in the economy, to topple Trump. Jones claims that the age of fiat money is nearing its end, that crypto currencies will take its place, and that’s important for the US Government to channel fiat funding into the military sector primarily, for the inevitable battle with the Chicoms, lest the US be invaded and conquered. Alex Jones is cheering for Trump to engage in military keynesianism, despite the fact Trump has already engaged in it. It’s not enough according to Jones.

Alex Jones is pro-life. He thinks that the lives of children and of the unborn are sacred. Yet his fiscal conservative stance runs counter to his professed beliefs. What happens to the children of the poor? What happens to the children of those in the middle class, who weren’t poor when they had the children, but have become poor due to circumstances beyond their control? And food is just one part of the problem. What about housing? What about electricity and running water? What about health care? What about education? What about access to jobs and job security? Alex Jones has nothing on this front. His sympathy for children ends after they’re born. The “free market” will handle it from there. Meanwhile, the so-called free market is only free for rent-seekers, usurers, and cartels.

I don’t mind different ideologies as much as I mind ideological inconsistency. You can’t call yourself pro-life and be against the Welfare State. Call yourself what you are: a social darwinist. And since Jones likes to invoke Adolf Hitler and the Nazis all the time in his dialogues and monologues – I clue him in on Nazi socio-economic policy. The Nazis, even though they practiced eugenics, they had full employment and welfare policies in place. The Nazis would have discarded individuals based on their genetic value, not based on their economic condition like Alex Jones. He’s the typical conservative fraudster. Unlimited Government money for the military. Little or no Government money for the civilian economy. In his view, the former is capitalistic, free-market, and patriotic; the latter is socialistic, communistic, and treasonous.

At the beginning of the month, Jones had someone on his show, who hinted at a secret liberal conspiracy between Pope Francis and Vladimir Putin. Jones didn’t cut him off, didn’t challenge him on that point in any way. The only times I’ve heard Jones commenting about Putin, at least recently, was on the submarine incident, hinting that there’s likely something sinister behind it – insert your preferred secret alien tech theories here…

In a most recent episode, a self-proclaimed right winger [not a republican] called in to suggest that Trump is a ruse. Jones cut him off immediately and talked over him like he had a severe case of verbal diarrhea, then Jones pretended the caller had shut the phone on him. He’s so desperate, he won’t allow a critical POV on Trump whatsoever. Censoring your audience isn’t productive; it looks as though you have something to hide / fear.

I believe these points are enough to prove my case. Alex Jones is a false anti-Globalist. He doesn’t condemn US economic warfare, responsible for creating waves of migrants and refugees. He doesn’t condemn Israeli Apartheid policies toward the Palestinians – on the contrary, he squares all the blame on the Palestinians. His invectives for the neocons pale to insignificance when contrasted with the invectives used against the upstart ‘radical left.’ He’s a pathetic cheerleader of Netanyahu. Never attacks [Jewish] Zionism or Christian Zionism. In fact, Jones went so far as to justify and defend Jewish ethno-centric influence over US national and foreign affairs. But God forbid the Jew in question should be an anti-zionist. No, that would make that particular Jew a servant of the Globalists. Meanwhile, Trump’s using the US military in the interests of a foreign state, Israel, doing Netanyahu’s dirty work. But that doesn’t count as “globalism” in Jones’ book. You see, the Iranians, and the Iraqis, and the Libyans, and the Syrians, and the Afghans own all the liberal media outlets and Democrat politicians in the United States and formulate the country’s foreign policy and its domestic agenda [sarcasm]. That’s why Alex Jones is a despicable shill and propagandist for the other half, the other face of the Establishment. American exceptionalism is nothing without tanks, guns, bombs, and lies.

The Globalists of Left & Right

by Serban V.C. Enache

In a previous article of mine [The Neo-Malthusian New Deal], I linked to Wolfgang Streeck’s review essay on ‘Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism’ by Quinn Slobodian. By condensing and summarizing the arguments of these two scholars, and giving my own thoughts on these grave matters, I hope to make the reader understand who contributed the bricks & mortar for the scheme known as globalization and how the left and right strive to achieve the same thing, the Feudal Dominion of International Shareholders.

From the very beginning, the ideological ambition was global and universal; the distinct, the particular, the unique, like customs, nationhood, and sovereign states, was and still is considered a threat to the grand design of a Weltwirtschaft [world economy] without borders, which was expected to restore the golden age of unfettered 19th century liberalism. The empires of free trade fell in 1918 and were replaced by a host of sovereign and potentially democratic nation states, which carried the prospect of ‘economic nationalism,’ a dangerous virus in the eyes of the globalists. After 1945 decolonization started and the introduction of majority voting in the UN General Assembly was introduced; these two anti-liberal political architectures, together with the Keynesian gospel of national self-sufficiency, threatened not just economic progress but the ‘open society, human freedom, and dignity,’ so it was claimed…

The new culture in which the globalists planted their seeds of ambition was called neoliberalism. This ideology was both opposed to nation states, and, at the same time, dependent on them for its very existence. It opposed the sovereign nation state as a vehicle for change, for such a vehicle has inherent tendencies to contain and or distort markets [the market being a creation of the state, though they would never admit it openly]. On the other hand, neoliberalism is dependent on the sovereign’s capacity to fend off and suppress the public’s demand for social security, which would de-liberalize the economy. I can think of no better example of such ideological thinking than Alex Jones. When referring to the New Zealand shooter’s “responsible markets” demand in his manifesto, Jones equated the adjective “responsible” with “controlled,” in his attempt to paint the criminal as a socialist, a left-winger. Going back to neoliberalism, its purpose was and is to weaken the nation state as an instrument of mass, popular will, while strengthening it as a bulwark against the ‘illiberal dispositions’ of the public – in other words, to paraphrase James Madison, the state’s role is to protect the opulent few [the rent-seekers] from the rest of humanity, from the well-organized majority to be more precise.

Democracy spreads the expectation of a more or less egalitarian outcome, some sort of real socio-economic gains for the many [likely in detriment to the ultra rich minority] – therefore, democracy had to be implemented in such a way as to prevent its entry into the realm of the economy. The state was to only patrol and enforce the institutional limits. Beyond those limits, democracy couldn’t enter – otherwise no chance for a free market; and of course, their free market idea was a bastardized version of Adam Smith’s, because Smith was referring to “free” as in free from rent-seeking. In the same spirit of sophistry, what’s commonly referred today as Keynesianism is actually the bastardized version of Keynes’ theory, popularized by Paul Samuelson and his ilk.

Friedrich Hayek cooked up constitutional designs for a democracy that couldn’t touch the economy. Mayhaps ridiculed at the time, Hayek’s institutional views of [pseudo] free markets and castrated nation states prevailed. Today, we hear the old, liberal rhetoric of the centrist-globalist factions alongside their mass media outlets, which rails against the evils of populism [ideas that resonate with ordinary people] – evil populism that will subvert the neoliberal market and the ‘freedoms’ which come with it. These freedoms are: 1) the free flow of goods, 2) the free flow of services, 3) the free flow of [financial] capital, 4) the free flow of labor. John Maynard Keynes maintained that the unrestricted [unregulated] flow of international capital endangers the self-governing experiment we call democracy. This the globalists knew and schemed for…

The globalists always knew that capitalism with democracy would result in state intervention, a majority of the population desiring to point the economy in a certain direction. They understood that democracy, inevitably national, can coexist with capitalism so long as democratic politics is restricted to the realm of traditional beliefs and customs, not accompanied by clear-cut interests of class or country. Cultural warfare was fine and desirable, as long as free trade and private property remained sacred. Neoliberalism didn’t mean disconnecting the state from the market, but, as Slobodian observed, “encasing” capitalism in state-policed institutions, where democracy had no access. In other words, an ideological and institutional bubble was created, a perpendicular realm erected on top of a society powerless to act or react to this realm.

Slobodian describes the history of neoliberalism, of its doctrine and politics, as that of a group of extraordinary people — the globalists, thoroughly ‘networked’ in an era in which networking had not yet been invented. Renewing itself over three generations, the group held together from the end of WW1 (1918) to the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the 1990s, the new peak or return of the former zenith of international capitalism.

The globalizers were both academics and business men, but academics who understood that a theory can become historically true only if it is connected to the commanding heights of politics and the economy. In Mont Pelerin, Hayek assembled his sponsors and followers for his battle against Keynesianism and social democracy. Slobodian refers to these men as the ‘Geneva School,’ who sought to infiltrate the ranks of institutional power, mass media, and public awareness in their quest to make the world liberal again. The globalists took the long view and didn’t break when they faced ridicule, opposition, or failures. They were a peculiar group, slowly turning into a church of so-called organic intellectuals. During the ’70s, international capitalism began dismantling the post WW2 economic architecture. This architecture – ugly to the globalists due to things like government buffer stock policies, government owned public utilities, jobs programs, and a regulated financial system – produced the following results in the United States, as noted by Marriner Eccles in 1951.

“Unlike some countries that I could name, where the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been poorer, our own development during the past two decades has been just the opposite. […] We have gone far toward bringing about a more equitable distribution, than was the case 20 years ago, of the goods and services which we as a nation can produce. […] In 1929 the highest 5 percent of all income recipients obtained 34 percent of the total national income, while, at the present time, they received but 18 percent of the total. […] Meanwhile, the share of total income received by those in the lower income classes has increased proportionately. […] This means that we have in the years since 1929 accomplished one of the great social revolutions of history, a revolution that has developed gradually and has been, and will continue to be of great benefit to our entire nation.”

The globalist sect organized on all levels: seminars, meetings, university departments, collective publications, gave prizes for the young, made connections with sponsors while themselves bankrolling whoever might at some point prove worthy of recruitment. Dissent on theory was allowed, so long as such divergence didn’t imply differences in practice, and their theories were made flexible. With careful and sustained efforts, the Geneva globalists steered a huge number of institutions across the entire Western world — like the Rockefeller Foundation in New York, to the GATT [The General Agreement on Tariffs & Trade] in Geneva. Through these outlets, the globalists waged their war on the nation state [democratic or otherwise], which still threatened their influence over the economy.

Early on, the Right understood the full implications of the fundamental conflict between capitalism and democracy while parts of the Left were still dreaming of an international capitalism with a social dimension or human face to it. West Germany’s ordoliberals, like Franz Bohm and Wilhelm Ropke, were a major force on the international, globalist stage. They were tenacious neoliberals, contributors to the rise of anti-New Deal currents in the United States as early as the 1950s. In fact, Ludwig von Mises, one of the great theoretical economists of his age, was heavily involved in the concoction of the neoliberal blight. Hypocritically, the staunch market-liberal Mises died of old age in ’73, in New York, in the same rent-controlled apartment on the Upper West Side he had lived in for decades.

The globalists saw the European Union, in its successive incorporations, as a model of how to tame the democratic nation state through a legally enshrined supranational market, one with guaranteed property rights and an anti-interventionist competition law. Combining isonomy [equality of political rights] and supra-national law, the model was to be enforced by an international court, thereby circumventing national legal and political institutions, rendering them impotent. All these efforts were very much in line with the Hayekian federation project of the 1930s and 1940s. Slobodian clearly explains how extensive and future-orientated the neoliberal project was from the late ’30s. When German ordoliberals went to Brussels to help design the legal and institutional architecture of an integrated Europe, they were able to bring with them carefully thought-out institutional blueprints, incomprehensible in scope and consequence to many of those outside this refined cabal.

One case in point, among many, is the astonishing continuity and inner coherence of the life’s work of a true polymath like Friedrich Hayek. He was involved in the Viennese debates of the 1920s on socialist planning and its limits. Joseph Schumpeter and Karl Polanyi also participated in those debates. They continued in the ’30s, on the eve of World War II, as Hayek wrote about international federations that were to secure world peace and safely enshrine a liberal economy – albeit this latter aspect would be disguised as a byproduct of the integration. Shortly before this, Hayek had dissociated himself from Konjunkturforschung (the econometric and mathematical study of the business cycle), which he found too akin to Keynesian ambitions to ‘steer’ the economy. By doing this, he gave a clear message that Keynes was clueless about economics. Sadly for Hayek, as empirical analysis shows, it was the other way around.

As Slobodian writes, Hayek himself declared the capitalist market economy to be ‘sublime’ and beyond human comprehension, something to be left to itself – and if one interfered with it, many evils could be unleashed upon the world. This type of mysticism is not new in the history of Mankind. The early Islamic economists argued the same, in order to keep the Sultan from meddling in the affairs of the bazaar. Like Paul Samuelson confesses in this very short clip, which I encourage the reader to watch, it’s all about the establishment’s use of superstitions to control the narrative. Hayek developed wide-ranging, utopian ideas about the right kind of political institutions for [neo]liberal political economies, institutions designed to keep politics away from markets and protect the unknowable economy from the intervention of the uneducated and under-educated masses who wanted a better social contract than that offered by the establishment.

We’ll go back to Hayek in a moment, but to better understand the difference in means and the equality of ends, I must contrast the Geneva globalist approach to that of the bolsheviks. I will cite from the book/Manifesto, Der Geist des Militarismus, Stuttgart 1915, by Nahum Goldmann [a leading Zionist and founder of the World Jewish Congress], from the English translation housed in the collection of the Leo Baeck Institute, p.37 – 38.

“The historical mission of our world revolution is to rearrange a new culture of humanity to replace the previous social system. This conversion and reorganization of global society requires two essential steps, firstly the destruction of the old established order, secondly, the design and imposition of the new order, the first stage requires elimination of all frontier borders, nationhood and culture, public policy, ethical barriers and social definitions. Only then, the destroyed old system elements can be replaced by the imposed system elements of our new order.

The first task of our world revolution is destruction. All social strata and social formations created by traditional society must be annihilated. Individual men and women must be uprooted from their ancestral environment, torn out of their native milieus, no tradition of any type shall be permitted to remain as sacrosanct. Traditional social norms must also be viewed only as a disease to be eradicated. The ruling dictum of the new order is, nothing is good so everything must be criticized and abolished. Everything that was must be gone.

The forces preserving traditional society are “free market capitalism” in the social economic realm, and “democracy” in the mental political realm. The capitalist free market does not fight against the old economic order, nor does democracy lead a fierce hot battle against the forces of reaction which oppose the new order, therefore our transformative work will be imposed through the unifying principle of the militaristic spirit, the negative task of destroying the old established order will be completely solved and finished only when all the human masses are all forcibly collectivized as uniformed soldiers under imposed mass-conformity of new order culturing.

After destruction of the old order, construction of the new order is a larger and more difficult task […] We will have torn out the old limbs from their ancient roots in deep layers, social norms will be lying disorganized and anarchic so they must be blocked against new cultural forms and social categories naturally re-emerging. The general masses will have been first persuaded to join as equals in the first task of destroying their own traditional society and economic culture, but then the new order must be forcibly established through people again being divided and differentiated only in accordance with the new pyramidal hierarchical system of our imposed global monolithic new world order.

With the above paragraph in mind, let’s return to Hayek. The man arrived at his theory of ‘complexity’, drawing on neuropsychology and general systems theory. As far as he was concerned, this delivered the ultimate proof of the levity and uselessness of any collective human attempt to intervene in the course of history, economic or otherwise, with the exception, obviously, of himself and his Mont Pelerin Society comrades. Complexity theory, as understood by Hayek, defended an aristocratic social order, those at the top being the only ones that mattered. While Hayekianism has long become the working hypothesis of neoliberalized capitalism, Slobodian’s great merit is that he helps us see the connection between the admirable scholarship, and the sinister political plot behind it. Hayek’s theory of complexity was conceived to frustrate the adepts of state interventionism [be they marxists or non-marxists] and ensure that the world continued to operate according to the market principle of cumulative advantage, as summed up in the bible of all places, “For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.” (Matthew 25: 29). This, Hayek believed, and the neoliberals dutifully took from him, was still far better than social-democratic tampering with the mysteries of a hyper-complex global capitalism. The founder of the Austrian School of Economics, Carl Menger, didn’t have such ridiculous and esoteric beliefs regarding society. In fact, Menger was infinitely more sensible when it came to the state’s role in the economy. His view is summarized below…

Government thus has to intervene in economic life for the benefit of all not only to redress grievances, but also to establish enterprises that promote economic efforts but, because of their size, are beyond the means of individuals and even private corporations. These are not paternalistic measures to restrain the citizens’ activities; on the contrary, they furnish the means for promoting such activities; furthermore, they are of some importance for those great ends of the whole state that make it appear civilized and cultured. Important roads, railways and canals that improve the general well-being by improving traffic and communication are special examples of this kind of enterprise and lasting evidence of the concern of the state for the well-being of its parts and thereby its own power; at the same time, they constitute major prerequisites for the prosperity of a modern state. The building of schools, too, is a suitable field for government to prove its concern with the success of its citizens’ economic efforts.” Carl Menger’s Lectures to Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria (ed. by Erich W. Streissler and Monika Streissler; trans. Monika Streissler and David F. Good), E. Elgar, Aldershot.

As we can see, the Mont Pelerin method of destroying sovereignty, democracy, and nationhood is far more tactful, suave, and intellectual compared to the brutal ways of the bolsheviks. And less we forget, the opposite of feudalism is nationalism, which is why, in the beginning of the article, I described the phenomenon as the Feudal Dominion of International Shareholders.

The beauty, I think, of the so-called free market [free for rent-seekers, usurers, and private cartels] is that it’s so fantastical, it ignores history and even double-entry bookkeeping. The religion of the free market is based on three core lies. They conflated land with capital. They conflated money [records of debits and credits] with commodities [like gold, grain, wool etc]. They conflated the government/state with any other household or corporation, claiming it has the same financial limits. These myths have been thoroughly debunked by many people across time and across the political spectrum [here’s one example] – but they are called zombie myths for a reason, because they refuse to die… It’s because we are indoctrinated with these false ideas from early childhood, 24/7, which makes it very difficult for the individual to unlearn these lies and replace them with the truth or something closer to the truth. When people become aware that their entire belief system is based on lies [shattered assumptions], most simply refuse to uninstall the faulty OS from their brain and just close themselves off to anything remotely heterodox in nature.

The Left rallies behind a ‘no border’ program it believes to be anti-capitalist, unaware or unwilling to recognize that the abolition of the nation state is a dream that their political counterparts held long before them. The overriding goal of the globalists was to abolish, if not the nation state completely, then its political capacity to govern itself, by exposing it to a competitive world economy with safely enshrined property rights, rights more akin to privileges, due to the deliberate conflation of Land [the Natural Commons] with Capital [the product of spent Labor], creating in effect a system of cartelized, rentier markets and an ideology of neo-feudalism. Anything that could provoke popular opposition to this had to take second place. If immigration on a large scale threatened to wake up sleeping dogs [mass movements], the globalists didn’t push it. This restraint had pragmatic reasons behind it, in the logic that competition in global markets for goods, services, and capital sufficed to do the trick and reduce nation states to mere regions in which some colorful flags with national inscriptions are waved. Failing this, immigration across open borders as a universal human right under international law was kept in reserve as another tool to soften up national solidarity by importing the international market for labor into the national political economy.

When it came down to the capitalist basics, the practical men from the MPS [Mont Pelerin Society] not only abandoned ‘racist’ objections to ‘multiculturalism’ and the like, but denounced them with much the same rhetoric as their apparent opponents on the radical Left. It’s important to note that the Mont Pelerin Society, the Frankfurt School, Post-Modernism, and other groups/currents like them [on the right and left] were heavily funded by Western oligarchs and Western Secret Services. Frances Stoner Saunders makes it abundantly clear in his book, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. The goals were fairly simple – substitute class interests and class antagonism with cultural, racial, gender, and sexuality issues, preach false solutions, and demoralize the population [the working class in particular].

Wolfgang Streeck ponders the following… Can the freedom of movement of labor [the fourth of the four trans-national freedoms of the neoliberal utopia] still be pushed while the other three are being pulled back into the confines of democratic, national politics? This also raises the issue of whether socially and economically mixed countries exposed to unfettered immigration [and migration] can muster the political will to fight internal inequality by protecting their societies from the vagaries of global markets. Is a country able to re-establish the national economic system without having control over its own immigration policy?

Wilfully neutered academics have engaged in mental gymnastics and fancy equations to come up with things like multi-level government, global governance, public choice, complexity, subsidiarity etc, taking them seriously on their face value and turning them into fashionable intellectual toys of a shallow social science, entirely unperturbed by its political irrelevance. Here there was a clear vision, a desire to make history through domesticated academics, simultaneously free and cut off from political and social responsibility. Compared to Slobodian’s globalists, the army of political scientists that specialized, mostly with funding from Brussels, in debating things like inter-governmentalism vs neo-functionalism, must appear hopelessly out of touch with the real world. But the globalists of Geneva and the Mont Pelerin Society and their audience understood what they were talking about, so well in fact they didn’t always have to be explicit about it, whereas their academic mouthpieces had no idea from which source their daily bread came. Taken out of context, however, these concepts became entirely arbitrary; they could mean whatever meaning one attributed to them. To avoid suspicion and criticism, euphemistic jargon was employed to wash out any association with capitalism – things like ‘integration’ and ‘social dimension’…

A better life for all, now or later, was enshrined in the so-called four freedoms: 1) the free flow of goods, 2) the free flow of services, 3) the free flow of [financial] capital, 4) the free flow of labor. The ‘no-borders’ Left wants to suspend the first three and keep the fourth. The economic nationalists wish to suspend all four. The liberal-dems wish to keep the first three and suspend the fourth. While the neoliberals want to keep all four. I wrote a while back on the fourth element in an article called Historical and Socialist Views on Immigration.

Capitalism was for the [mainstream] economists a sublime realm of esoteric mathematics. In contrast, the globalists had long given up on such mysticism, using the economic profession simply as a tool for propaganda to convince the dirty masses of what their ‘true needs’ were; the dictums were simple – tighten your belt if you wish to prosper – privatizing profits and socializing losses is good for the economy – usury and rent-seeking are “normal” economic activity… But the globalists had moved on to the realm of laws and political institutions, engineering the supreme instruments with which to castrate politics. Sovereign, democratic states were dangerous for them, because through these vehicles the mass of humanity would command greater bargaining power, to the detriment of the opulent minority. As such, the globalists had to turn the state vehicle into the great protector of [rentier] capitalism.

Yet hope remains and it comes from the East… I will end with this statement from April made by Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: “The Western liberal model of development, which particularly stipulates a partial loss of national sovereignty – this is what our Western colleagues aimed at when they invented what they called globalizationis losing its attractiveness and is no more viewed as a perfect model for all. Moreover, many people in the very Western countries are skeptical about it.”

The Duran: US-China Trade Talks Collapse

Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris discuss the breakdown in trade relationship between the United States and China. After the talks reached an impasse, Trump threatened to raise tariffs on $200 billion worth of imports from China [raising the rate from 10 percent to 25 percent]. The increase will take effect on Friday.

My comment: Trump keeps mentioning how China pays and will pay for his tariffs and how great it is that the Chinese are fueling the US Government with [ironically] its own fiat money. Chinese-owned dollars sit on the Federal Reserve’s electronic ledger, by the way.

Every mainstream and heterodox economist will tell you that consumers pay these tariffs, not exporters. I must stress the fact that the only way the Chinese are paying for these tariffs is if they agree to decrease their markups to accommodate Trump’s tariffs, in order to maintain their market share [which is shrinking]. That being said, celebrating this [as Trump is doing] doesn’t square with his promise of bringing back jobs from China. In fact, even if China’s share of the US market were to vanish, that gap would largely if not totally be plugged by other foreign countries, NOT by domestic production & employment. Given Washington’s belligerent stance, Beijing is securing commercial and strategic ties with other important state actors and it’s concluding these agreements in currency swap operations, which bypass the US state financial system.

Trump is a master when it comes to wielding smoke and mirrors, both domestically and at international level. Many think Trump is an Anti-Globalist, but that is not true. He is a Globalist who wants to keep the US as the ‘grand master’ of that cabal and is actively combating efforts led by other countries [like Russia] to create a multi-polar system. As far as the ‘one world government’ idea is concerned, the US is that entity de facto [albeit not in its complete form] and wishes to remain so at any cost, even if the price is a new Cold War and needless mayhem across the globe. The most eloquent [recent] example of such needless death and suffering is this paper from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), which finds US Sanctions on Venezuela Are Responsible for Tens of Thousands of Deaths!

Follow the Duran website and youtube channel for future videos and great discussions. If you like their content and are able to spare a few bucks, visit their Patreon page to show your support.