Addiction, Polygamy, and Neofeudalism

by Serban V.C. Enache

We shall see how chemical thralldom, cultural and class warfare lead to demoralization, disease, violence, and political instability.

More than 70 percent of societies studied by anthropologists allowed men to have more than one wife. Polygyny has seen a decline over the past centuries. But in recent times, it’s been on the rise, even in countries where it’s still technically outlawed. Four years ago, professor Valerie Hudson wrote a thoroughly convincing article on the threat to national security posed by polygyny. I’ve never been a fan of this marriage system, ditto for polyandry, and my instinct on this matter turned out in line with actual reality. It’s from Valerie Hudson I borrowed the most important points for this blog post.

Polygyny was legalized in 2013 in post-Gaddafi Libya, alongside the de facto resurrection of the slave trade there – thanks to the wonderful liberals and humanitarians in NATO. There are also factions in Tunisia who are pushing for the legalization of polygamy. Even in post-Soviet countries like Kyrgyzstan, polygyny is a hot topic on the agenda. Legalization attempts failed there in 2010, only because polyandry [a woman having multiple husbands] would have had to be legalized as well. Almost all the upper class men from Kyrgyzstan have more than one wife [between two and four, usually acquired around the age of 18].

According to a Gallup survey from 2015, 16 percent of Americans consider polygamy as morally acceptable; in 2003, only 7 percent held that view. Some analysts predict full legalization [of polygyny and polyandry] in Western countries in the next decades. This trend isn’t a positive phenomenon, in fact, folks should be alarmed.

Historically speaking, polygyny [a man taking multiple wives] is the most common form of polygamy. Research has shown plenty of problems directly created by the socio-economic and cultural system of polygyny. Maternal mortality rates are five times higher in societies with the highest rates of polygyny compared to those with the lowest rates. Women in these societies also have reduced life expectancy compared to monogamous societies, the difference being around 20 years in lifespan. Polygynous societies exhibit levels of sex trafficking and domestic violence [toward women] twice as high compared to monogamous or low-polygyny societies, while the risk of female genital mutilation in strong polygynous societies jumps by a factor of 100. And when it comes to children, boys and girls face a higher risk of malnutrition and receive less education, narrowing social mobility.

There’s more to it, though. Polygyny, at its core a rigid class system, is a threat to national security as well. It creates a strong imbalance between the wed and those unwed, seeking a spouse. If each man takes more than one wife, it leaves other men [usually from the lower classes], without any wives at all. Nearly half the boys in polygynous cultures need to be removed from their primary community at puberty in order to sustain this imbalance whereby few [older, wealthier, more influential men] claim a disproportionate share of women for themselves. Because these estranged boys tend to come from the poorer segments of society and are often left with less education and little social support, few choices are available to them, short of violence, to carve out their own destiny. A strong link between the number of greenhorns taken in by terrorist groups and the prevalence of polygyny has also been identified.

Greater competition among men looking for wives leads to unstable political situations – and as a consequence, increased government repression to contain the phenomenon. Highly polygynous societies sport rigid [unmeritocratic] hierarchies and despotic governments. Historian and anthropologist Laura Betzig studied 186 societies around the globe and found a strong correlation between polygyny and despotism. Compared to monogamous societies, these countries grant far fewer civil and political rights to their citizens, men and women.

Anthropologists also found strong links between polygyny and warfare. It fuels tensions between men who are seeking to reproduce, and those men or forces who deny it to them – “the first law of intergroup conflict [civil war].” Polygynous societies are more likely to engage in expansionist warfare as a means to distract low-status males without wives. Countries with higher rates of polygyny spend significantly more money on weapons. In studies examining more than 140 states, Valerie Hudson and her colleagues found that polygyny is strongly linked with lower levels of national security and political stability. A great many scholars across the social sciences, who studied the relationship between polygyny and violence inside and among groups, conclude the same. Real academic consensus exists on the critical subject matter of polygyny. These solid correlations hold true regardless of region, faith or culture. The negative socio-economic and political dynamics associated with polygyny are not bugs in the system, they are its features. The system’s math creates a pool of disgruntled young adult men who [rightly] seek to oppose the establishment. In these marriages, when the females suffer from structural inequality and subjugation, and this state of affairs is built into family culture, the boys who grow up into men under under this way of life, come to regard women as 2nd class citizens against whom violence is acceptable. Under this rotten script [the script authored by and for the select few men], polygyny generates ever-growing cycles of violence within and between individuals and societies.

This particular blight is growing in the East as well, in the former soviet republics. While the consequences of the one child policy, and of sterilization [population control policies inspired and sponsored by Western Governments and Western NGOs] are felt in countries like India, China, Vietnam, and Korea; where an imbalance in the gender population is causing a huge wave of child abductions due to a lack of women for marriage. Around 170 million women are ‘missing’ from the demographic count; they were never born due to State policy agendas, touted as humanist programs destined for humanitarian purposes.

The polytheist Romans and Greeks were wise enough to practice monogamy. For Europe, the USA, and other countries, monogamy is a legacy of our pagan ancestors and must be defended at all costs. Even the Zionist state of Israel has outlawed polygamy ever since 1977, despite the fact Judaism approves the practice. Israeli state planners understood the threat polygamy poses to the stability of the country.

Chemical thralldom and disease

In the US the situation is very alarming. More and more adolescents and young adults in the late 2010s compared to the mid 2000s suffered serious psychological breakdown: major depression episodes, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts. The rate of individuals reporting symptoms consistent with major depression increased by 52 percent in adolescents from 2005 to 2017 and 63 percent in young adults from 2009 to 2017. The rate of young adults with suicidal thoughts or other suicide-related outcomes increased 47 percent from 2008 to 2017.

In the last decade, cultural trends have had a much bigger impact on young people compared with older generations. Higher levels of social media use are also believed to be responsible, especially in the case of teenagers. Youngsters are also sleeping less than previous generations.

Almost 80 percent of the global pharmaceutical opioid supply is consumed in the United States. The problem has spread to other countries as well, particularly among young adults. It seems that medical doctors get less and less knowledgeable on drug addiction, when it comes to causes and treatment; or perhaps more of them are earning commissions by recommending drugs to people who don’t need them. Drugs used for non-medical reasons is a global concern, primarily driven by the large and growing phenomenon of non-medical use of prescription opioids in young demographics. Prescription drugs are legal and are easier to procure than most illegal drugs. Most drug‐related deaths worldwide are caused by prescription opioid or heroin overdoses. A recent review has illustrated worldwide increased rates of deaths from prescription opioids. In Europe, prescription opioids account for three‐quarter of overdose deaths, which represent 3.5% of total deaths among 15‐39 year olds.

Non-medical use of stimulants and prescription opioids among adolescents and young adults is also linked to the increased [harmful] use of other substances. Greater social acceptance for using these medications as alternatives to controlled substances and the myth they’re safe may be a contributing factor to their misuse. There are negative consequences of sharing with others medications prescribed for our own ailments. Equally important is the need for medical practitioners and their staff to recognize patients who seek to consume substances for non-medical purposes, to consider and implement alternative treatments and closely monitor the medications they dispense to these patients.

The World Health Organization reports more than 1 million STIs are acquired every single day. An STI is a sexually transmitted infection that hasn’t yet evolved into a disease. Since the majority of STIs have no symptoms or only mild ones, most people have no clue they’re carriers. Mexico has the highest number of HIV cases in all of Latin America; and 60 percent of HIV carriers don’t know they have it. England, last year, registered a 5 percent increase in STIs. Gonorrhoea is at its highest in 40 years. Syphilis went up as well, at over 7,500 cases. A new high in STIs was reported in the United States too. Nearly 2.3 million cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis—200,000 more than in 2016, which was a record-breaking year in its own right. The Center for Disease Controlled said the country was going backwards, showing a steep and sustained increase in sexually transmitted infections in recent years. Growth from 2016 to 2017 is concerning, but the data from just six years ago is quite alarming. For instance, syphilis cases went up by 76 percent, particularly among men who have sex with men, albeit infection rates in women are also on the rise. We’ll see how quickly these STIs develop into diseases, given rising levels of substance abuse, pollution, lower quality food, hormone-ridden water, and depression all taking their toll on the body’s immune system.

Neofeudal economics and xenophilia

Ever since the Democrat and Republican parties moved away from their pro-labor platforms throughout the decades, becoming staunch supporters of the ultra rich [rent-seekers, usurers, and war profiteers] and their exclusivist economic agenda [of Globalization], the working class put up with the demise of the industrial economy and the rise of the service economy [mutated today into the gig sector] – while every aspect of human life was financialized. Value no longer shapes prices. Prices shape value. That’s how we end up with seemingly paradoxical situations like wages stagnating, despite unemployment going down, and the top 0.1 percent’s share of income growing while inequality [the GINI coefficient] is on the downward trend. Western public institutions are being systematically defunded. Even if the money sums may not show it, these essential public services are shrinking in real terms. Prison populations are exploding while the staff is downsized. In the UK, psychiatrists, nurses, teachers, and dentists have been reduced six times over, compared to ten years ago. Literacy levels are dreadful and only getting worse.

Class and cultural warfare are now waged on all levels, visible and invisible, directly and indirectly – because the working class has been divided and demoralized up to the hilt. Solidarity has evaporated; we pretty much only hear of it when it comes to a particular group’s self-interest, but never different groups working together on principle. Contemporary liberals and the so-called SJWs [Social Justice Warriors] have a profound disdain for the white working class, no longer viewing it as seminal for progress, but wishing it didn’t exist. There is more propaganda today than ever before in human history. The Western virus of addiction, degeneracy, and neo-serfdom is spreading like wildfire, despite populist resistance here and there. This ‘woke’ future is going to be a lot closer to a dystopia than anything else.

I’d like to close this article with George Washington’s thoughts on xenophilia and geopolitics from 1796. If you read between the lines, Washington was making the case against imperialism, and his insight remains strongly relevant to this day.

“So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak [country] towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.”

One may be tempted to conclude that two factions are at odds with each other: the pro-war xenophiles vs the pro-war xenophobes. But that view is incorrect. The Republican party just exploits the issues of open borders and outsourcing, feigning opposition. Their corporate backers want unlimited immigration and persistent unemployment in order to put downward pressure on wages and to squeeze extra labor for poorer working conditions and lower pay. You don’t like my terms? Get out. There are a thousand like you willing to take this job. They don’t want it reversed on them. Hey, are you going to give me a decent package? Because fifty other firms are willing to take me on.

The Koch Brothers are the perfect example on this issue. They promote this brand of ‘business conservatism’ who eats into the very flesh of working Americans and [ironically] their own customer base, and they also promote the deranged libertarian current, which is actually feudalism [and hedonism] with the word liberty thrown in to entice suckers at the bottom who foolishly dream that – one day – they too will become like Bezos [a self-professed libertarian], provided they work hard enough. And when they achieve that goal, they’ll also want Government “off their back” [aka. will want Government to subsidize them even more and protect them from the ‘dirty’ masses].

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-Mexico Deal

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the tariff deal reached between the United States and Mexico to “stem the tide of migration”. Donald Trump announced that the tariff threat in response to a surge in illegals from Mexico to the US has been suspended. Both men emphasize this fine detail. For its part, the Mexican Government has agreed to restrain migration through its territory and toward the Southern Border. House leader Nancy Pelosi had her own thoughts on Trump’s big PR win, saying: “Threats and temper tantrums are no way to negotiate.” Christoforou and Mercouris also discuss the past trade relationship between the US and China, pointing out that while American blue collar workers suffered as China’s trade surplus with the US grew, the US political establishment saw this and did nothing.

My Comment: Alexander Mercouris is exactly right that US elites [republicans and democrats] did nothing to protect blue collar workers from cheap Chinese imports. This graph clearly illustrates this, and, like Mercouris pointed out, it wasn’t China’s fault. Big US capital was happy to profit.

As the Chinese were selling more and more net wealth to the US in exchange for US dollars, this not only impacted the quantity of trade, but also the composition of trade, the makeup of domestic industry, its associated labor segment and remuneration. It’s also important to note that, even with fewer labor inputs, US manufacturing output did grow over time.

And despite Trump’s bogus claims that the economy is booming like never before, the country’s output capacity has yet to recover to pre GFC levels. This next graph shows us that.

The relative good economy now is due to private debt growth, not anything else. By the by, dollar reserves obtained by China [earned through trade and unearned via interest from US treasury bonds] even though being owned by the Chinese central bank, these dollar accounts sit at the Federal Reserve’s ledger. In case of serious conflict or just whim [like in the case of Venezuela], the US central bank can freeze these accounts or delete them outright, which would deny China’s ability to use these funds to purchase output [from vendors legally allowed to sell to Chinese firms]. No amount of tariffs, however, can replace domestic investment in infrastructure, R&D, and education.

Many people think the Chinese got the competitive advantage because they allowed foreign capital to come in, rape the environment, neglect workers’ rights and labor conditions and pay them slave wages. But there are other countries on the globe that do the exact same things, yet they are not manufacturing powerhouses. The key difference is that the Chinese state invested in education and infrastructure, including hospitals. And at long last, it seems the Chinese leadership is determined to focus more on domestic consumption, rather than exports.

Follow the Duran website, their youtube channel, their iTunes Podcast, their Soundcloud, on Minds, on Facebook, on Twitter, and on Instagram for future videos and great discussions. If you like their content and are able to spare a few bucks, visit their Shop, their Patreon page, their Paypal to show your support.

Cat, mouse and snake

by Serban V.C. Enache

In his essay, “The Precariat: Today’s Transformative Class?”, Guy Standing tries to set up a historical context, a categorization of current class identities and class dynamics, and puts forth several measures to achieve a brighter future. It’s great that he talks about reclaiming the commons and taxing economic rents – albeit he forgets to stress that regressive taxes should be abolished while doing so. Continue reading “Cat, mouse and snake”

Historical and Socialist Views on Immigration

Socialism is NOT Liberalism

by Serban V.C. Enache

In the past, I wrote about open immigration policy being a boon to capital. It’s important to consider both sides of the balance sheet: one country is gaining people, another is losing people. Naive liberals will claim that immigration is great to have in any and all circumstances. Narrow-minded conservatives will argue that immigration is a bane on a country’s health and security. I will completely disregard such delusional thinking, and instead offer what I believe to be a balanced perspective, one that takes into account circumstances – moderation and prudence always being good tenets to follow. Continue reading “Historical and Socialist Views on Immigration”