France & Germany, Shameless

by Serban V.C. Enache

“The haggling around rescues in the Mediterranean has to be ended.” German Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas.

“We cannot continue to do nothing as thousands of men, women and children who’ve left behind everything fall into the hands of human traffickers. We cannot simply abandon them to face either shelling in Libya or drowning in the Mediterranean.” French President, Emmanuel Macron.

The West toppled Gaddafi, favoring Islamist factions to take over, and since Gaddafi’s death on November 2011, the slave trade was resurrected, the country was was carved up in numerous fiefdoms and engulfed in a civil war between the Tripoli faction and that of General Haftar. Currently, foreign powers are selling weapons and ammunition to both sides, in the attempt to hedge their bets. Whichever faction wins, the war profiteers win with them.

Other countries like Italy, who had no stake in the conflict, and even argued against regime change in Libya, are now expected to accommodate refugees and migrants, in effect, subsidizing the business of human traffickers, while some NGOs have started playing the role of intermediaries. But it’s a matter of compassion, they say, of human rights. Indeed. So why are you dumping the problem on a third party? How would you like it if a stranger came at your house with a trailer of human beings from abroad, making it your responsibility to offer them shelter, food, water, basic amenities, hire translators to communicate with them, check them for diseases etc? Then, of course, the delivery men or women take off into the spotlight, obtaining praise, and returning to their comfy houses or apartments, where nobody disturbs them.

Where does humanitarianism stop and human trafficking being? But most importantly, when will the hypocrisy end? Giving people asylum is one thing; but expecting the host countries to give them citizenship and integrate them [which is a lot harder compared to simply giving them ID cards] is another thing entirely! The rational process would be temporary asylum, conflict in source country ends, then they’re repatriated, where they’ll contribute to rebuilding their homelands.

Even the Dalai Lama supports this basic, reasonable plan of action. But the liberal elites in the West do no agree. Think just for a second the level of moral degeneracy we’re living in. The authors of a country’s destruction and dismemberment are lecturing third parties about what it means to be kind and have mercy; this pathetic appeal to humanitarianism, which exists in name and name only! It’s the same in the US. The bleeding heart liberals arguing for unlimited immigration and no borders, while their favorite political party, the Democratic Party, is waging covert and overt economic and military operations against these states from which the migrants and refugees stem. The conservatives only distinguish themselves from the liberals, in that they want secured borders and regulated immigration, but their favorite political party, the Republican Party, is busy perpetrating the same crimes abroad, adding to the numbers of refugees and migrants.

Sarkozy’s France, perchance the most rabidly determined to get Gaddafi out of power, shoulders the moral responsibility first. And now French and German political elites are lecturing other heads of state about what’s just and humane. Ditto for Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Venezuela. Salvini told them to come to Rome if they want to discuss the matter. But will they? I don’t think so. The EU establishment proved time and time again it won’t concede an inch to dissenting factions or dissenting member states, no matter how valid the argument is. We often hear about “our European” way of life, “European culture,” the Western civilization… and we hear this narrative from the center and the far right. Well, I don’t resonate with your brand of “Europeanism.” It’s been the violent chessboard of some of the mightiest empires in history and of some of the longest and bloodiest wars to boot – the spring of two world wars… I am not in favor of federalism [albeit I used to be], not with these elites in charge. I am not in favor of this neoliberal Tower of Babel suppressing the nations of this place and those nations outside Europe. I don’t favor this Satanic construct, built on falsehood, usury, rent-seeking, and war profits. To hell with it! May it collapse and join the broken graves of past, brutish empires. I want a Europe, indeed a world, of sovereign states: the Westphalian Sisterhood of Nations.

Articles I & II of the Peace of Westphalia:

“[…] And this Peace must be so honest and seriously guarded and nourished that each part furthers the advantage, honor, and benefit of the other… A faithful neighborhood should be renewed and flourish for peace and friendship, and flourish again.”

“On both sides, all should be forever forgotten and forgiven. What has from the beginning of the unrest, no matter how or where, from one side or the other, happened in terms of hostility, so that neither because of that, nor because of any other reason or pretext, should commit, or allow to happen, any hostility, unfriendliness, difficulty, or obstacle in respect to persons, the status, goods, or security himself, or through others, secretly or openly, directly or indirectly, under the pretense of the authority of the law, or by the way of violence within the Kingdom, or anywhere outside of it, and any earlier contradictory treaties should not stand against this. Instead, all and every, from here as well as from there, both before as well as during the war, committed insults, violent acts, hostilities, damages, and costs, without regard of the person or the issue, should be completely put aside, so that everything, whatever the one could demand from the other under his name, will be forgotten in eternity.”

US Establishment working to rig 2020

by Serban V.C. Enache

The [conservative] investigative group, Project Veritas, did a probe into Google’s new “safeguards” to prevent another Trump presidency. It includes interviews with a whistle-blower from that company, and two secretly filmed conversations with a Google executive and a Google engineer. Unsurprisingly, Youtube, a subsidiary of Google, took down the video, claiming it violated privacy rules.

Jen Gennai, head of ‘responsible innovation,’ says the following… “Elizabeth Warren is saying that we should break up Google. And like, I love her, but she’s very misguided; like that won’t make it better, it will make it worse – ’cause now all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do, will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, […] a small company can’t do that. […] We got called in front of Congress multiple times. […] They can pressure us, but we’re not changing.”

Let’s briefly dissect the above paragraph. Breaking up a company – one that has a de facto monopoly in several fields, monopoly obtained through preferential relationship and access to technology from specialized US Government institutions and anti-competition practices – is a political choice. Unless she wants to become a politician or a lobbyist, the head of the “responsible innovation” department of Google should refrain from emitting such obviously biased and self-serving, political opinions. More to the point, she should not manipulate the audience by conflating her political preference with what is and isn’t technologically and logistically feasible. Multiple companies policing reprehensible behaviors online is not akin to having multiple companies digging up the ground and planting their own pipe and sewer systems underneath a city, a task which is neither economically nor environmentally feasible. We’re talking about the digital realm, where the constraints are vastly different. And if we’re talking about a lack of financial resources for these smaller companies, that’s a red herring too. So long as there’s demand for a service, there is profit to be made, and investors and business loans can be secured. But of course, this
Jen Gennai wasn’t talking about any sort of reasonable standard of content policing [child pornography, human trafficking, terrorist cells etc] she was referring wholly to Google preventing the reelection of Donald Trump. In short, this Google executive is full of it.

Another hallucinating aspect raised by Project Veritas in their probe on Google is “algorithmic unfairness,” as the company understands it. A passage from this document, under the sub-title “If a representation is factually accurate, can it still be algorithmic unfairness?” reveals the following… “Yes. For example, imagine that a Google image query for CEOs shows predominantly men… even if it were a factually accurate representation of the world, it would be algorithmic unfairness.” Google software engineer, Gaurav Gite, is secretly caught on camera stating that, “So they’re trying to modify the model, such that even if the data for female CEO is low, it still balances out.” This is social-engineering gone berserk. Instead of depicting actual reality and striving to promote equality of opportunity, not just de jure, but de facto, while also taking merit into consideration, without which the outcome cannot be just, Google is trying to deform reality to suit its fantasy, however progressive it may be. The goal doesn’t justify the means; but the mantra of the ‘PC police’ is ‘judge us by our motives, not our methods.’

These type of secret and invisible filters to its algorithms are unacceptable in a society that’s supposed to be free and democratic. Ultimately, the fate of this society depends on the will of the citizenry to be informed and stay informed, not on shady, corporate giants, who are unelected and accountable to none. A state and a press that fears the people, or I should say, the groups in control of the state and the press who fear the people must be brought down from these institutions – initially through democratic exercise at the ballot box, and if they refuse, then by force of arms. To quote Abraham Lincoln, “The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.”

Meanwhile, the Establishment’s mouthpieces, those ‘woke’ intellectuals, whose hearts bleed for the fate of immigrants and Muslims in the US, who manufacture crocodile tears on air, and who – prior to Trump’s election – were criticizing the Donald’s potential “isolationist” foreign policy and were bemoaning the possible demise of US internationalism were in fact fearing that the next POTUS might shed away the empire in favor of the nation state. I hope it’s evident by now, to the average spectator who still has a soul in his or her chest, that all of these internationalists and bleeding-heart intellectuals are in fact political prostitutes, mercenaries, and war profiteers, and in no way, shape, or form do they serve the national interest of the United States. And when I say national interest, I mean the national interest defined in Westphalian terms: nations forgiving and forgetting past transgressions among and between them, while working to “further the advantage, honor, and benefit of the other.” The Westphalian national interest should be the cornerstone of any civilized country, especially for those countries which claim to be Christian. For more on this, please read my articles The Sovereign Nation State and The Globalists of Left & Right.

What have these mainstream commentators [tories and libs] done during the Trump presidency? They’ve applauded every belligerent action taken by the Government and condemned every sensible and diplomatic action as “weakness,” as evidence of “Russian meddling,” as “gross disorganization” because Trump didn’t launch military attacks. Isn’t it ironic that the vast majority of these elites are the most rabid for military confrontation? Of course, they’d never want to be in the front lines or to have their kids there, just the plebs recruited by the Military, because who cares about them? And isn’t it also ironic that the far right, to an increasingly larger and vocal degree, doesn’t share the same affliction? Quite the opposite, it condemns former and future military involvements and opposes US soldiers going abroad to kill and be killed on behalf of foreign interests. But the pro-peace voices [no matter their political color] are being denounced as out of touch, isolationist, extremist, and militant. So what are these elites telling us? That censorship is freedom, secrecy is accountability, might is right, and war is peace.

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.”

Bulgaria of Labor & Reason

by Serban V.C. Enache

BTR [Bulgaria of Labor & Reason] is a newly registered political party in Bulgaria. Their economic platform is based on MMT & Georgism, and they desire to get the country out of the EU and out of NATO. I’ve made two promotional clips for them in solidarity with their political aims.

Bulgarian Version

English Version

Also check out their website, Bulgaria MMT.

The Cure For Hyperinflation: Weimar and Venezuela

by Serban V.C. Enache

We frequently hear people bemoan the dreaded phenomenon of hyperinflation. We often hear only one explanation for it – the government printed money like crazy. We rarely hear the reasons behind the overuse of the currency press, which are: loss of output capacity [human and material] as a result of natural disasters or loss of a war, unfair war reparations, political instability, brazen corruption, the end of a fixed exchange rate with a strong currency. In this article I’ll focus on the cure for the phenomenon of hyperinflation – and this cure won’t entail brutal fiscal austerity that halts inflation by condemning much land and capital [buildings and machinery] to idleness and a great many souls to involuntary unemployment, poverty, and sickness.

The Weimar Republic. Background.

After WW1, life in Germany became hell. The political and economic burdens the creditors of the Versailles Treaty [Woodrow Wilson especially] imposed on the Germans created the conditions for the hyperinflation which soon followed. These impositions were highly unjust and impossible to meet. Meanwhile, the Ruhr Valley, Germany’s industrial heartland was occupied by the Allies. Workers responded to the occupation by organizing strikes. Crashing economic activity led to falling tax revenues and higher welfare payments. The Government, deprived of gold reserves and output capacity, had no choice but to print money to cover its costs plus the war reparations. Hyperinflation ensued. Farmers and manufacturers more and more refused to sell their output for the increasingly devalued Papiermark. This is the context of the phenomenon. Those interested in the facts will verify them, those interested solely in confirming their preconceived notions will dismiss them.

The Plan To Fix The Problem

Finance Minister Hans Luther, working together with Hjalmar Schacht [later head of the Central Bank], using Karl Helfferich’s idea of a currency backed by real goods, formulated a scheme to contain the rampant inflation of the Papiermark. In 1923, Berlin, the Rentenbank was created. The institution provided credit to agriculture, industry, and commerce.

The term “Rentenbank” stems from “annuity bonds”, fixed-income securities [bearer bonds] issued by the first pension banks during the 19th century. Since the Middle Ages the peasants were forced to provide easements to their landlords – various hand services and the like. In the early 19th century, though, agrarian reforms started in Prussia and other German states aimed to disband these obligations. The effort initially failed owing to a lack of a proper credit system.

To accelerate the agrarian reforms, pension banks were established as state-owned mortgage banks. They gave state-guaranteed, freely tradable and fixed-rate bonds (annuities) as money compensation for the expired privilege of the landlords. On the other hand, the peasants paid fixed income to the pension funds over a long period of time, from which the banks were able to service the principal and interest on the bonds. These reforms and the liberation of the peasants gained traction and agricultural productivity rose dramatically.

Enter the Rentenmark

Returning to the 1920s, November 1923 to be precise, the Rentenbank issued its own currency, the Rentenmark, which was covered by mortgages on the grounds of holdings. Total amount of mortgages and land imposts was valued at over 3.2 billion gold-marks. The Act creating the Rentenmark ensured twice yearly payments on property, due in April and October. In return for the real estate, Rentenbank issued interest-bearing bonds with a value of over 500 gold marks or a multiple thereof. The exchange rate between the Rentenmark and the Papiermark was set at 1:1 trillion, and with the US Dollar at 4.2:1.

The Rentenmark didn’t have legal tender status, so there was no legal obligation for private agents to accept it as a means of payment, however, all public institutions had to accept it. Even without legal tender status, the citizens embraced it right away. The Rentenmark’s value was relatively stable, while its quantity remained fixed, Shacht insisted on it. On August 30th, 1924, the newly-introduced Reichsmark became legal tender and was given equal value to the Rentenmark. It’s very important to note that this exchange rate was applied to two fiat currencies over which the Government had power of authority. It retained the right to alter the exchange rate if it wanted or needed to. The issued Rentenmark nominal remained in circulation up until 1948.

Tight Money Policy

In charge of the Central Bank, Hjalmar Schacht implemented a tight monetary policy, the institution ceased discounting Papiermark bills and, despite political pressures, he kept the volume of Rentenmarks strictly limited. As for fiscal policy, Finance Minister Hans Luther went on the austerity route, the correct choice given the circumstances. He brought forward due dates for taxes, increased prepayments of assessed taxes, raised the sales tax, and readjusted the fiscal burden between the regional governments [Lands] and the Reich [the Central Government]. Spending-wise, Luther shrank the number of Reich bureaucrats by a quarter over four months, froze bonuses and reduced their wages. These measures accompanying the issuance of the ‘land-backed’ Rentenmark succeeded; hyperinflation was brought to an end immediately. People spoke of the ‘miracle of the pension mark.’

Between 1926 and 1929 inflation hovered below 2 percent. In the early 30s, however, in reply to the Great Depression, the Government of Heinrich Bruning imposed harsh austerity measures needlessly [tightening credit, cutting wages, cutting public assistance, and increasing taxes], which exploded unemployment and poverty levels in the country and, in the process, made the once marginal Nazis incredibly popular with the people. The National Socialists opposed Bruning’s Government from the beginning, unlike the other right wing parties. Bruning and his policies became widely hated.

See the graph below.

The reader will rightly ask, why did fiscal austerity work for Schacht and Luther, but not for Bruning’s Government? Schacht and Luther applied counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy, while Bruning applied pro-cyclical policy. Excess demand relative to supply is eliminated via taxation [draining income from the private sector]. But during the Great Depression, there was too little demand relative to what was actually on the shelves. Bruning’s reforms collapsed aggregate demand levels even further.

Thoughts On Venezuela

The geopolitical aspect is very important, for it can greatly amplify minor or general problems very fast [See Turkey], or it can spark them. The State Central Bank’s dollars in non-cash form reside in accounts at the Federal Reserve, which are beyond Maduro’s control. The Government can’t access these funds. Recently, the US and the UK stole Venezuelan oil and bank assets worth about 30 billion dollars. More so, the US has imposed an outright embargo against Venezuela [trade sanctions levied since 2013 got harsher and harsher, depriving the country of hundreds of billions of dollars in economic activity]. Lastly, belligerent statements coming from Europe and Latin America [Brazil and Colombia especially] and Washington threatening with ‘all options on the table,’ which includes assassination, sabotage, coup, and invasion.

Footage from supermarkets in the capital, stores filled with produce, reveal that a shortage of goods isn’t the problem, but high prices. If it’s true that Maduro’s Government kept public spending high without re-adjusting it to falling prices of crude, then his policy is a key contributor to the bolivar’s dramatically reduced purchasing power. Currency pegs and indexation of wages and pensions with anticipated inflation feed the vicious loop. The Venezuelan Government announced that it’s accepting payments in Euros. In my opinion, this is a big mistake, because the ECB can pull the same stunt on Venezuela that the FED pulled. Maduro is much better off negotiating an entry into the Petro-Yuan with Beijing. Why? You can purchase virtually anything from China. China has made numerous investments across the developing world without asking for political concessions in exchange, in stark contrast to the likes of the IMF. Beijing doesn’t seek regime change or privatizations in exchange for its money. It does business with whoever is interested and it offers advantageous rates too. Trade-wise the Chinese are interested in two things: securing raw material imports and securing demand for their factories. It’s a win-win for both sides.

In my opinion, Venezuela will become Syria 2.0, because there’s no sign that Washington is going to accept any other outcome. The satanic crowd around Trump, the Deep State, and their servants in the corporate media are all pushing the same old hypocritical, war-mongering narrative. They spew it as if it’s a new dish too, not the same rotten thing, teeming with slime and worms. And before we blame it all on the Republicans, remember that 85 percent of journalists in the US are registered Democrats. Since this issue is bipartisan, we know it’s outright devilry. Bolton, Pence, Trump, and the rest – they want to cover up their failure to dismember Syria and Iran by picking on Venezuela, a more vulnerable target closer to home.

If I were in Maduro’s shoes, I’d escalate things ahead of my rivals. I would invite in Russian and Chinese troops and war-gear. Washington doesn’t like to cooperate or negotiate with sovereign regimes. For many decades now, the logic has been, you do as we say, otherwise we treat you as a rogue state. Against a rival who doesn’t wish to bargain and who has threatened [euphemistically or not] violence and murder, you’ve no choice but to take all measures required. Maduro has to choose the 2nd most extreme of defence options [2nd only to the preemptive strike, which doesn’t apply here] because in this context, it’s the wisest step.

If mainstream commentators are fine with US gangsterism, with countries purchasing protection from Washington and the Military Industrial Complex, then they should be fine with Venezuela purchasing protection from Russia and China. They can’t oppose it without being hypocrites and without being Monroe Doctrine apologists, defenders of imperialism, oppression, and mass-murder; not that that’s gonna stop them. Let’s not be naive, US hegemony is shaking. The 2nd Cold War is on.

Update on Venezuela: a report by CEPR finds that US sanctions against Venezuela, started by Trump in 2017, are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths.

So What’s The Cure, Dammit?

The recipe for a return to price stability is contingent on the factors which spawned the instability. This list of measures will hopefully cover all eventualities: 1) Counter-cyclical fiscal policy [drain excess money in circulation via taxation, while cutting superfluous spending.] 2) Land-value capture to replace taxation of buildings, labor, sales, and enterprise [taxing natural monopolies, the rent of location; the site-value tax carries negative dead weight – it brings efficiency to the marketplace]. 3) Buffer stock policies [the public authority buys seminal commodities during periods of excess production and sells these commodities domestically during times of dearth]. 4) Allow the national currency to float freely according to demand [drop any fixed exchange rate, whether it’s to gold or foreign currencies, and embrace a sovereign fiat regime]. 5) Negotiate with rival political factions to settle differences and produce a national accord that appeases all sides to a reasonable extent. 6) Ration basic resources to ensure no section of the population starves [hands and minds are precious and must be kept alive and functional to create goods and services for another day; there’s no sense in killing off one section of the population to feed another extra rations]. 7) Bring in a second or third great power in your region, in order to decrease the bargaining power of the established one/s and strengthen your own position in the process. 8) Link up the country’s regions through a comprehensive system of infrastructure, high speed rail especially [the points of resource extraction with the manufacturing centers, the latter with the marketplaces]. 9) Restrict bank lending for speculative purposes [do not permit banks to accept financial assets as collateral for loans, or to mark their assets to market prices.] 10) Discourage private and public agents from borrowing in foreign currency [always ensure loans in domestic currency are cheaper than in foreign currency; never subsidize the latter type of loans]. 11) Employ all available labor to achieve maximum output [Depending on the situation, participation in public works programs would be mandatory or voluntary. In case of emergency, working hours could be increased and holidays decreased.] 12) Don’t lose a war [or better said, don’t lose peace negotiations concerning your fate]. 13) War Bonds [While the role of War Bonds is to allegedly fund a war, in practice what they do is drain liquidity from those who purchase them. They can be denominated in foreign currency, domestic currency, or both. That being said, liquid or illiquid purchasing power is still purchasing power. People can still purchase things on credit, contingent on their own financial situation. War Bonds may have a psychological effect on the populace, reminding households that they must tighten their belts, deferring consumption to the future, so more supplies can be allocated to the troops in the now. The promise is that, after the war is won, bond holders get paid at a profit. 14) Retiring the currency and replacing it with another [Brazil did it several times in the last 77 years; the Government announces taxes and fines payable in a different currency. This method involves burning away people’s cash savings. To escape hyperinflation, Zimbabwe gave several foreign currencies legal tender status.]