Rouse Up, O Young Economists of the New Age!


The Dance of Albion, William Blake

By the late 19th century, the British empire was on its knees.

It had suffered defeat in proxy wars at the hands of nationalist leaders like Lincoln and Bismarck, it was losing Eurasia in its “Great Game” against Russia, and the power of the sea was waning in the shadow of the continental power embodied in railroads, canals and industrial development.

Unable to confront its enemies militarily, the British have endeavored to demoralize, exhaust and redirect enemy populations in a long war of attrition known as the Fabian Strategy. Key in the strategy has been the employment of anti-nationalist economic doctrines disguised as radical “populism”.

The propaganda of the early 20th century seems anachronistic today, but its ripples still radiate, pushing truth-seeking minds like paper boats away from the safe harbor of imperialism’s only true enemy.

As William Blake, pre-Fabian and spiritus rector of British propaganda, wrote, “I will not cease from mental fight, / Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, / Till we have built Jerusalem / In England’s green and pleasant land.”

The New Age Magazine: The Fabian Society bankrolls economic blind alleys

Before it became the official magazine of Scottish Rite Freemasonry, The New Age was an influential British “literary” journal. Founded in 1907 by one Alfred Orage, The New Age was in fact funded, organized and stewarded by George Bernard Shaw, who had served the same purpose for the British Fabian Society and the London School of Economics. While the magazine contained modern poetry, literature and criticism, much of its attention was directed to debating politics and promoting certain new-age and populist economic ideas.

The Fabian Society – Imperialists clothed as socialist revolutionaries. Many contributors to The New Age, like Shaw and HG Wells, were drawn from the ranks of the Fabian Society. Ostensibly, the Fabian Society was the “Fabian” counterpart to Marxism, promoting the erosion of capitalism through black propaganda rather than through direct attack. In truth, the war of attrition was waged not against capitalism, but against would-be republican nationalists interfering with British designs.

Georgism. Shaw was heavily influenced by Henry George, an American writer active in the 1880s and popular in England. George’s program for America – free trade, restricted immigration and a single tax on land – was an attack on Republican policies. In a period where 3 Republican presidents (Lincoln, McKinley, Garfield) were assassinated by British assets for promoting protectionism and development, George’s proposed reforms were a step back to the pro-British policies of Andrew Jackson. Free trade was the open enemy of the Republicans. A single tax on land (in a period where most revenue was raised through import tariffs) would have freed Wall Street and strangled industry. Restricting immigration would have cut off the needed influx of industrial workers. George had limited popularity in the US – he ran for mayor of New York City, where his support came in no small part from Wall Street. Yet his ideas lived on to influence early 20th century economic doctrines, existing today in the cult-like milieu of Georgism / Geo-libertarianism, and various institutes, schools, blogs and the like in the US and Britain.

Social Credit. Among the main focuses of The New Age was to promote the “social credit” ideas of British engineer CH Douglas. Douglas’ cause was taken up and popularized by writers from Shaw to Ezra Pound to Aleister Crowley, another frequent contributor. The Social Credit program is frankly rather obtuse, and cloaked in gnostic Christian symbolism. Seeing purchasing power as the single greatest factor in economics, “social crediters” advocate the public distribution of credit to consume the increasing number of goods and services made possible by technology.

But Social Credit suffers from the fundamental flaw of viewing “production” as an automatic process where the bounty will continue upward and consumers simply lack the credit to partake. The one-time popularity of social credit can be attributed to its focus on interest as the bane of mankind, divorced from any notions of production, trade, employment and other considerations of political economy. Like Georgism, it is a free trade doctrine that focuses on a limited technical feature of the economy.

The pro- Social Credit YouTube videos of Dick Eastman provide an overview of the theory, plus a stew of British, Tibetan, Nazi and slave-ocrat influence that should speak for itself.

Distributism. The New Age also helped popularize “Distributism” by publishing essays and debates between Catholic economic writers like GK Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc. As exposed by EIR (see “Traditionalist ‘Cult’ is Roman, Not Catholic”), distributism like Georgism is basically a feudal policy. By “distributing” power to the lowest possible level, distributism makes political power less effective than corporate power (Wall Street/London). Distributism is kept alive by “traditionalist” Catholics like the otherwise excellent E. Michael Jones of Culture Wars magazine.

All Roads Lead away from the Obvious solution

The cacophony of British-spawned new age social doctrines and economic theories serves only one purpose: to distract readers from the true enemy of the British empire, the American System of Political Economy.

Advanced in America by leading political figures and economists like Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, and elsewhere by the likes of Bismarck, DeGaulle, Nasser and many others, “The American System” is highly-regulated, industrial capitalism that puts the general welfare of the nation before the profits of Wall Street and London.

The 5 P’s of The American System.

1. Protect. What do Henry George, Karl Marx and Ron Paul have in common? Free Trade! It should be painfully obvious that without protectionism, all economic activity races to the bottom. America was built not on “liberty” but on tariffs, labor laws, parity price laws and other basic protections. Tariffs funded the federal government for nearly a century. They allowed the creation of the steel and other basic industries. They prevented product dumping and “coolie labor” from destroying American jobs. Any economic doctrine that does not put protectionism first is feudalist propaganda.

2. Prevent. The American system does not recognize any natural antagonism between “capital and labor” but between production and exploitation. Early economists like Henry C. Carey and Friedrich List are explicit in drawing the distinction between the British empire of predatory financial speculation and the real economy of physical production, and the need to prevent the former from polluting the latter. The “liberty” of futures traders and the grain cartel, for example, must not supercede the right of farmers to make a fair living.

3. Provide. The US Constitution gives congress the power to pass laws to provide for the “common defence and general welfare.” The general welfare clause was put to the test in McCullough vs. Maryland, which upheld the constitutionality of a national bank. Interest-free public credit is not explicitly demanded by the Constitution, but is clearly allowed. The same is true of New Deal programs like Medicare (which FDR intended to expand to all citizens), Social Security and social welfare programs. Nobody fought against a “nanny state” more vigorously than Roosevelt, but he recognized the need for basic social welfare, funded by public credit, to build a stable and prosperous society.

4. Produce. Publicly-funded infrastructure and publicly-financed and -supported industry are central to the American System. How would Georgism create a transcontinental high-speed rail network? How would social credit bring back the textile industry? How would Distributism undertake a massive national project like NAWAPA? Private industry should produce and employ the vast majority of goods and jobs. But it needs a proper physical, financial and regulatory framework. “Central planning” does not need to involve some politburo running every lemonade stand. But some allowance needs to be made for congress to initiate projects of widespread importance and distribute credit via a national bank to employ private industry in the completion of said projects. Our national laboratories linger in obscurity. Our sovereign credit is deferred to the private federal reserve. Our bridges, roads and waterways are eroding. Private companies will do the work, but only effective central planning can set the priorities and start the process.

5. Proliferate. Lastly, the American System is not “mercantilist” in the sense of suggesting a competitive export economy. As FDR said, “Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off.” It is in the interest of the average American or Canadian not for the average Chinese to work cheaply, but to share a high standard of living. If Americans make our own iPads (with better safety, wages and working conditions), we get the iPads, the jobs and the circulating credit. The Chinese can then do the same and grow their own middle class. It is to the benefit of all but the British empire for all people to be more advanced, more prosperous and more secure. We must abolish predatory free trade but promote cooperative development between nations.

In conclusion

As the utopian illusions of libertarianism disintegrate, we must be careful not to be sucked into the quasi-socialist spawn of the Fabian Society. Anything short of the American System is a half-measure or a lie. Your enemy is not big government, Jews, communists or the Catholic church, but “The British Empire” – a transnational system of financial speculation, cartels, war machines and its attendant propaganda and elaboration. We are fighting a war against illusions, lies, provocations and terrorism. The only way to win is to abandon the gambits offered to you by your enemy, and embrace the only tradition that can win.


112 thoughts on “Rouse Up, O Young Economists of the New Age!

  1. Gregory Fegel says:

    You’ve written a well-researched and informative blog, Deadeye. Tarpley likewise describes the British Empire as the template for the economic Imperialism that we now call Globalism. The bogus War on Terrorism and the bogus CO2-caused Climate Change are programs that benefit the corporations and the Oligarchs, at the expense of the common citizenry.

  2. Elm says:

    This is by-en-large disinformation.

    Henry George was not a Feudalist or Monopoly Finance Capitalist, he was a fair trade open market capitalist, often depicted as a socialist, in George’s case meaning one who represents & stands behind.the progressive conservative principle of social justice, not as a front of a shill for Free Trade Monopoly or Corporate Collectivism. Indeed, in his 1879 book Progress & Poverty, George refutes the economic theories of British born Thomas Malthus, who was a Feudalist, & whose economic theories of wages & population would be fully in accord with so-called Free Trade Monopoly Corporatism today. To be sure, the fair trade economic philosophy of Amrican born Henry George, wherein all men own their labor & the produce therefrom, is anathema to Marxism in which all labor is owned & controlled by the Ideological Pretences of an Authoritarian or all powerful Collectivist State.

    Indeed, Marxism, that appealed to both the Communist & National Socialist brands of State Collectivism, lends itself to both the economic predations of the Corporate Collective & top down Economic Feudalism. To this end, the popular Board Game Monopoly, was first created & introduced in 1903 by Philadelphia Quaker Lizze Magie as The Land”Lord’s Game, specifically, to illustrate the philosophy of Henry George & refute the Monopolistic & Feudalistic Pretences of the Malthusians.

    Further, Henry George, comensurate with the title of his book, sought to articulte codify the perils of an agglomeration to the means of a production of wealth (monoplies & cartels) – to land & the labor reducing leverage of technology & machinery etc., that produce the basic necessities of life like food & shelter, into the hands of fewer & fewer owners or Land”Lord’s.’

    This poorly researched & disengenuous falsification & misportrayel of George’s most basic economic principles of labor & a production of wealth, perpetrates a grave injustice upon his memory & true fair market ideals, & thus appeals only the uninformed, ignorant & reactionary elements of a dumbed down & propagandized populace.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Is there a setting on Wikipedia that misspells the words before you paste them in?

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Sorry, that wasn’t nice. Calling George a “fair trader” is your bias. He wrote a book called “Protectionism or Free Trade” where he makes no mistake about his support for unregulated, untaxed (free) trade. “Fair trade” might be something like not taxing German imports but taxing the hell out of Haitian imports, then reinvesting part of the revenue in Haitian development, to account for differing labor standards. My point is that all the other mumbo jumbo is rendered meaningless because George’s major policy points empower Wall Street and weaken producers.

      • Elm says:

        Wall Street was unjustly empowered because non-human Corporate Entities devoid of conscience & soul, were surreptitiously gifted the Legal Rights & Prerogatives of Personhood & Citizenship, both State & Federal, of a human person. A Corporation is neither a human person nor a human being, but a Vampire tasked with an exploitation & mastication of resources & labor which are then regurgitated as profit to the Land”Lord’s.” Malthusian economic ideology brings about a destruction of fair market capitalism in deference to the euphemistically named “Free Market.” As anti-capitalist Corporate Monopolist David Rockefeller stated, “competition is a sin.”

        Wall Street & the Corporate Entities to which Corporate Personhood gave rise have advanced Free Trade for Corporations while undermining & destroying fair trade for human beings engaged in a production of wealth & capital for their own sake. As George explains, “The man who works for himself gets his wages in the things he produces, as he produces them, and exchanges this value into another form whenever he sells the produce. The man who works for another for stipulated wages in money works under a contract of exchange.” So, wages are not a reward for service, but a compensation in a value for value exchange for labor. George continues… “He also creates his wages as he renders his labor, but he does not [receive] them except at stated times, in stated amounts, and in a different form. In performing the labor he is advancing in exchange; when he [receives] his wages the exchange is completed. During the time he is earning the wages he is advancing capital to his employer, but at no time, unless wages are paid before work is done, is the employer advancing capital to him.”

        In other words, as George asserts in juxtaposition to Old World notions of Malthusian Feudalism, i.e., anti-capitalist & anti-fair market Corporate Collectivism, wages are neither a cost nor a demand upon the wealth or capital of another, in this case the Profits of Wall Street Corporations. Indeed, George identified the interests of the Land”Lord’s to be inimical to the interests of both wages & capital – that when rents, & today Corporate Profits, are high, wages & interest on saved capital would be low. Not much has changed since Geoge’s book emerged in 1879.

        The Privately held Federal Reserve & IRS are further obfuscations of the proper relationship between labor & wages, in which the Collection Agency for the Fed claims a 100% ownership of the fruits of all human labor under a guise if it being Corporate Income, thus the “INCOME” Tax “Return,” or confession. To the contrary, a man’s labor & wages are not Corporate “INCOME.” When this basic relationship between labor & wages is inverted, whereby wages are construed as a cost of production, rather than accorded the dignity of an asset of production in & of their own right – that all free men own their labor & the value accruing therefrom, this is the beginning of economic servitude. Both the Federal Reserve & IRS were created 34 years after George’s Progress & Poverty. It’s no accident today’s Ivy League Schools of Economic & Ideological Indoctrination, say so little of George.

        • deadeyeblog says:

          I don’t have much problem with what you’re saying, though most people’s eyes would glaze over (so good luck turning it into anything politically useful).

          But Congress (and any national government) has the right and need to raise revenue – the question is how. Lincoln said tariffs and corporate tax. George said land tax. Which program do you think Goldman Sachs (which occupies a couple blocks and has quadrillions in turnover) would prefer, and which would the steel industry (which occupies entire towns and regions, and competes with foreign producers) prefer? And who grows the economy – Goldman Sachs, who robs people, or the steel industry, who (used to) employ people and produce things they need?

          Should some guy working at a steel mill be fretting about who is theoretically advancing capital to whom from one paycheck to the next, or should he worry about keeping Indian steel out of the country and having a strong labor union to represent his interests?

          All the economists I criticized have a lot of food for thought that would be fun to talk about around the campfire, but none of it brings home the bacon.

    • Elm did a great job of defending George — I’ve passed his two comments around. Now let me do the same with Henry George.

      As if restoring Glass-Steagall (repealed under Bill Clinton – ironically enough!) would solve the current pressing economic mess. The LaRouchies are delusional in their pseudo-analysis.

      First, Bismarck never fomented a proxy war to run against Britain. He was very careful to avoid the challenge to Britain in Central Asia and the Middle East that Kaiser Wilhelm was looking for.

      LaRouche and his followers are charlatans. They have nothing. Everything they say is name dropping — “from the standpoint of blah blah blah” without ever showing the work — because there is none to show. LaRouche sells a dimension that he invents and that he says ordinary science ignores, but that Plato (with his dimension in which the ideal or perfect is more real than the physical world we know) and Leibnitz (with his ficitious monads – another reality behind reality metaphysical theory). He does the same with geometries based on different assumptions than those that obtain in our usual measurements and constructs — adding additional dimensions or changing assumptions — instead of the linear axes of Cartesian space and Euclid assumptions, mathematical equations — but what does LaRouche do with that? Does he really use Riemannian geometry to discover Plato’s metaphysical universe — a reality which is to our flatland as a cone and what we see as spirals really a single “direction” on cone-surface space. No. LaRouche uses Riemannian as poetic metaphor, he doesn’t go there, he doesn’t pull technologies from there. LaRouche is, as I said, merely dropping names, stealing the prestige of Riemann to support his charlatanism — his new Pathagorian mysticism now phony pseudo-science. LaRouche also takes principles of engineering and physics and “rediscovers them in the economics field — only he adds nothing that wasn’t there already.

      And his Hamiltonian “American System” is also a fraud. Hamilton was an agent of the Bank of England and what he favored was any goverment expenditure that would build a big national debt, any government financed “improvement” that would require borrowing. Henry Clay was a similar fraud – Clay, like Daniel Webster, being on retainer to Nicholas Biddle, of the Bank of the United States.

      LaRouche is a fraud. He has some things right, but he ends up favoring big government spending projects — a war economy without the war, but with the same confiscation of private wealth and freedom for big political pork projects. LaRouche thinks FDR and Bill Clinton were great presidents.

      The author is also wrong when he says the Fabians disguise themselves as “radical populists” — because Sidney Webb was strongly opposed to putting purchasing power in the hands of the public rather than the government to spend for the people. You may call this “progressive”, but never populist.

      Douglas and Sidney Webb disagreed from the first. The Fabians were always against social credit.

      There was also no common ground between Fabianism and Henry George’s opposition to land rent.

      The Fabian’s were elitists who wanted a socialism that left their particular elite set in charge. Henry George and C. H. Douglas wanted to disempower elites with social credit and the single tax respectively. These two men tower far above the socialism of the Fabians. I sould also add that H. G. Wells was also bigger and too independent to fit under the Fabian umbrella, although he did in his early years attend meetings along with Shaw. As for Shaw — he found Henry George first — and then looking for more to read — there really was no more to read — found Marx and without stopping to consider the contradictions he founded the Fabian society with the Webbs — which the Webbs took over and gave their own stamp while Shaw went on writing plays etc. also somewhere adding Nietzsche to his heterogeneous intellectual mix and he never did reconcile those different schools of thought, and as a playwright, critic and political pundit didn’t even try.

      So, Henry George had no connection whatsoever to the Webbs and the Fabians — they were not guided by his book Progress and Poverty at all. And Douglas and the Fabian’s were at odds from the very first conversation between Douglas and Sidney Webb. Also, Orage picked up Douglas and Social Credit after the Webbs had left the magazine “New Age” (not to be confused with the current “New Age” fad in occult religion — etc. Orage was clearly putting something in his magazine that was an alternative to Fabian socialism and of course the Fabians knew it. Also, the Fabian’s had abandoned the magazine New Age, where they used to publish their articles — they broke on ideological grounds, the Fabian’s going on to perfect the conspiracy of today and Orage taking the New Age to social credit. Once again the Larouche group have misled people — dropping names and then mixing in falsehoods.

      Henry George ran for Mayor of New York City, because that was the center of national power. He lost there because that power rejected him. Had he run for mayor or governor of California he likely would have won. Henry George was very popular in the US, as far as men with economic and sociological theories can be popular against the loud voice of money in a deflationary world.

      Henry George was for the elimination of land rent, replacing it with the single tax on land. Land rent is the object of speculation, especially in the US at that time. Henry George correctly pointed out that the United States was settled first with land speculation, buying up the likely locations of towns and cities, after which all of the wealth earned by workers, and engineers, and farmers – the builders of those towns and cities — would have all of their created value taken away in high rent.

      The fact is that speculation and rent go hand in hand for the ruling elites. Take Britain with their House of Lawyers – all on retainer to the City of London – and their House of Landlords (who let Ireland starve rather than reduce the tariff on corn — that during the mass-deaths of the great potatoe famine – still would not reduce the tariff because the famine meant high prices for British agriculture which could be robbed from the British tenant farmer though higher land taxes. This kind of pro-tariff thinking is close to LaRouche and far indeed from Henry George. LaRouche understands nothing of Henry George’s program or the problem it solves.

      The author calls social credit names and makes several false statements about it.

      First he says that it “sees purchasing power as the single greatest factor in economics.” The truth however is that social crediters from Douglas through Soddy up to today say that consumption is the purpose of an economy and that lack of purchasing power is the cause of depressions, a lack of purchasing power brought on by prices that must cover all of the producers expenses including financing, where the financing charges are both principal and interest — but the interest is not provided by the bankers whose loans constitute the money supply. (This is my version. Douglas would say that not enough money goes to incomes for incomes to be able to buy the goods at prices that cover all costs, including the costs of financing. Douglas summarized this by saying that the prices of products must total A + B while distributed income to buy the goods only equals A — so that goods remain unsold — there is a shortage of purchasing power, a shortage of “aggregate demand”, a problem of underconsumption. Now that is a heck of a lot different than this LaRouche groupie is telling you.

      Here is how this LaRoucher muddies the water:

      “Seeing purchasing power as the single greatest factor in economics, “social crediters” advocate the public distribution of credit to consume the increasing number of goods and services made possible by technology.”

      This statement makes it sound like social crediters view the basic problem as having consumption keep up with what technology can produce, as if the problem is in the real economy rather than in the monetary system. The problem of our economy is the financial and monetary system. Technology is not a problem. The market system is not the problem. Social crediters believe in the market system, and more than believing in it they actually understand why it is not working as it should — that reason is interest drain robbing the people of purchasing power — a built in tendency to deflation which can be speeded up by banks when they deliberately curtail lending and actually call in loans to create deflation that gives creditors a deflation premium windfall on the IOUs (bonds) they hold. All of this is missed by this LaRouche follower.

      The LaRoucher goes on to expound more falsehoods. He writes:

      “But Social Credit suffers from the fundamental flaw of viewing “production” as an automatic process where the bounty will continue upward and consumers simply lack the credit to partake.”

      What is this deception other than attacking a staw man that looks a lot like a socialist or a communist who doesn’t understand and respect the market system and what is required for a market system to succeed.

      The social crediter understands perfectly that the market system is driven by individuals seeking advantage from selling products to earn money to buy the things they want. The money provides the incentive to produce. The money is effective as an incentive because it buys things. Profit is what maintains entrepreneurship that hires and organizes labor, land and tools to produce products for sale. The entrepreneur who produces what people want at the least cost can make a good profit. The man who fails at entrepreneurship, who makes something people don’t want at the price his costs require him to charge makes a loss and faces business failure if his entrepreneurship does not improve. BUT SOCIAL CREDIT SEES A PROBLEM IN THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENT PURCHASING POWER FOR EVEN GOOD ENTREPRENEURS TO BREAK EVEN. There is a shortage of buying power, of hiring power, of debt-paying power due to the drain of interest. THERE IS NOTHING AUTOMATIC IN PRODUCTION – every social crediter understands that. It is a falsehood to say that they don’t understand that. Social Credit exists to remedy the reason why production fails to be profitable, despite the fact that people want the good and that the good can be efficiently made apart from the shortage of purchasing power added by interest charges, by excess debt brining about deflation. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THIS LAROUCHE FOLLOWER HAS ADEQUATLY STUDIED SOCIAL CREDIT AND THAT HE IS BEING HONEST WHEN HE MISREPRESENTS THEIR POSITION SO COMPLETELY.

      Next the fellow writes:

      “The one-time popularity of social credit can be attributed to its focus on interest as the bane of mankind, divorced from any notions of production, trade, employment and other considerations of political economy. Like Georgism, it is a free trade doctrine that focuses on a limited technical feature of the economy.”

      Actually the “focus on interest” is a recent innovation. Douglas avoided framing the “A + B Problem” in terms of “B” being interest alone. He put other “non-distributed” costs in as well. The new American populist version of the last six or so years, puts 1) net interest drain of purchasing power; 2) banks curtailing new lending relative to the closing of paid up loans; and 3) the deliberate calling in of loans as the three causes of deflationary depression, of underconsumption, of aggregate business and home mortgage failures.

      There is no reason to call the social credit analysis a “free trade” doctrine. “Free trade” today means finance capitalism, it means unregulated foreign investment/speculation as overseen by the big banking interests who profit from manipulations of currency exchanges, futures markets, wars, monetary expansions and contractions. Free trade means Rockefeller and Rothschild have their way internationally. It means that and nothing else.

      Social Credit looks at monetary manipulations by banks, by bond holders, by central banks and by a government. They look at the plumbing of the economy and find the leak that is causing the shortage of purchasing power, that causes purchasing power to be inadequate to mediate all of the production and distribution that can be done to improve people’s positions through mutual cooperation. The lack of purchasing power prevents the development of technology and the reward for application of that technology.

      LaRouche wants the government to do big Stalinist technology and to hell with the consumer. LaRouche wants to fund Halliburton to build giant projects — forgetting about the consumer — that is, the household, the family, the individual. Big Government and Big Corporations — with the figleaf of the promise that with LaRouche insights “from the standpoint” of Plato, Leibnitz, Nicky of Cuza, Alexander Hamilton, Riemann, FDR and Bill Clinton there will be so much technological improvement that somehow paying the interest on the borrowing that financed all of this Big High-Tech Pork Spending will not be so bad. But why not? How is protectionism — tariffs on competing goods from abroad — going to solve the interest problem?

      The American populis social credit reform does not require tariffs, but it requires balanced trade, it requires that our imports must be paid for by our exports or else we do without. Also we require that foreign lending not be allowed. LaRouches hereos Hamilton, Clay, FDR, Clinton all favored borrowing from Rothschild. La Rouche simply says debt doesn’t matter once the big technologies that call on Platonic forms accessible through Reimannian geometry are brought into play, once the greater “flux density” of new technologies are employed. In other words, LaRouche’s super science from beyond the Euclidian universe is going to make our debts unimportant.

      LaRouche and his followers make noises like they are addressing the monetary problem but they are not. All this fellow says is this:

      Early economists like Henry C. Carey and Friedrich List are explicit in drawing the distinction between the British empire of predatory financial speculation and the real economy of physical production, and the need to prevent the former from polluting the latter

      He says that, but that is saying nothing. What does it mean? What does he mean by “drawing the distinction?” I suppose “from the standpoint” of Plato and de Cuza and Alexand Hamilton.

      Money gets in the way of the realization of technology to meet human ends. And LaRouche introduces no new way of financing — his innovation is only that he is investing in smarter things, investing in things that only someone who understands Monads, and Platonic forms and Riemannian differnetial geometry will know to invest in – this making so much wealth that the way it is financed will not be a burden. But that is the lie of Hamilton, the lie of Henry Clay and the lie of Lyndon LaRouche. The dollars determine who gets the economic pie that is produced, in this world and in LaRouche dream space. The financial and monetary systems are set up so that increasing ownership of whatever is made goes to the financial sector and not to the business sector, the household sector or even the government sector. (Note: the finanancial sector elites own the corporation stock as well as the bonds — they gain from monopoly ownership and from interest and from speculation in a rigged game where they control expansions and contractions of credit that produce booms and busts each of which, boom and bust, they position themselves to profit from. Under the LaRouche system that will not change. The bigger the LaRouche investment, the more the financiers will end up holding in their pockets. LaRouche never considers the way wealth is distributed under his system. He simply promises to cover all problems with new production — but it is only infrastructure — LaRouche does not put money in the peoples hands so that they can direct production through Household Demand. But he is such a dazzler at droping names and talking over peoples head’s (but still a lie all the same — the system he assures you is out of your sight, does not exist, or if it does, Lyndon LaRouche certainly has no clue of how to really find it. He is a scammer, and all of this followers are either scammers too or else college kids who prefer the LaRouche’s bait of scientistic scam over the libertarians bait of gold-standard “freedom” or the communist/socialists bait of raw power over other people.

      The LaRoucher follower goes on:

      “The US Constitution gives congress the power to pass laws to provide for the “common defence and general welfare.” The general welfare clause was put to the test and upheld in McCullough vs. Maryland, which upheld the constitutionality of a national bank.”

      The idea is that the low interest loans will go to government projects.

      “Publicly-funded infrastructure and publicly-financed and -supported industry are central to the American System. How would Georgism create a transcontinental high-speed rail network? How would social credit bring back the textile industry? How would Distributism undertake a massive national project like NAWAPA? . . . “Central planning” does not need to involve some politburo running every lemonade stand. But some allowance needs to be made for congress to initiate projects of widespread importance and distribute credit via a national bank to employ private industry in the completion of said projects. Our national laboratories linger in obscurity. Our sovereign credit is deferred to the private federal reserve. Our bridges, roads and waterways are eroding. Private companies will do the work, but only effective central planning can set the priorities and start the process.”

      Hamilton and Clay – Hamilton against Jefferson and Clay against Jeffersonian Calhoun — backed a Bank of the United States — which engaged in grand speculations, fostered land development, but always with speculation preceeding. And once things were built up, that same National Bank would arrange a deflationary panic so great that all of what was built would pass into the hands of the creditors in Philadelphia, New York City and Boston. Low interest rate — easy terms, from a national bank along the old “American System” model of Nicholas Biddle (ultimately Rothschild) — to build up assets destined to fall into the hands of the lenders. LaRouche doesn’t fix the problem. LaRouche doesn’t acknowledge the problem. LaRouche sweeps it under the carpet – where it will jump out and bite you in the ass AFTER you have taken La Rouche’s poison pill.

      LaRouche follower draws a pretty picure:

      ” If Americans make our own iPads (with better safety, wages and working conditions), we get the iPads, the jobs and the circulating credit. The Chinese can then do the same and grow their own middle class. It is to the benefit of all but the British empire for all people to be more advanced, more prosperous and more secure. We must abolish predatory free trade but promote cooperative development between nations.”

      Sounds great, doesn’t it? But did you notice that he hasn’t told you how you get there? Will it happen automatically from protecive tariffs. Will it happen from big government projects financed at low interest by a national bank?

      Think about it. Suppose right now we put up big tariffs to keep out all of those Chinese goods. And suppose the national bank offers interest free loans to every firm that applies to produce goods to replace the imports. Who would build an American ipad factory when Americans don’t have the purchasing power to buy the product — and to pay for the new factory and the factory that makes the machines that are needed etc. If there is no money in the hands of the people, how can making these more expensive products be profitable?

      LaRouche would use interest free loans as a subsidy. But why build even a subsidized factory if the public doesn’t have the purchasing power to buy the product? What is LaRouche’s answer? He depends on the paychecks to workers who are building the vast infrastructure items to be the ones who go out and spend to make the demand for the non-government financed production to take off. But how long will that take? And how much infrastructure must you build before the public has enough earned income — buying more expensive local goods – to be able to support widespread American production. This is a very serious problem. La Rouche is doing what the communist central planners under Stalin did — working on big industrial projects and infrastructure projects,with easy credits and help from Rothschild — letting the “second string” economy take care of consumers. Actually the scandal was very much like the economy would be under a LaRouche regime. Easy credit for the chosen industry followed by a drying up of easy credit and all of the assets going to the bankers — swallowed up by the big monopoly corporations that the crediters own. That is what always happened in the “American System” of old. That is what must happen when finance is a sweetheart relationship between a national bank and Congress.

      The fellow concludes with these words:

      “As the utopian illusions of libertarianism disintegrate, we must be careful not to be sucked into the quasi-socialist spawn of the Fabian Society. Anything short of the American System is a half-measure or a lie. Your enemy is not big government, Jews, communists or the Catholic church, but “The British Empire” – a transnational system of financial speculation, cartels, war machines and its attendant propaganda and elaboration. We are fighting a war against illusions, lies, provocations and terrorism. The only way to win is to abandon the gambits offered to you by your enemy, and embrace the only tradition that can win.”

      And how is the “British Empire” but Rothschild and other banking houses of the City of London? And what is Rothschild but a Jew. And what is Rothschild’s politics if not Zionism? Who is behind Israel? Who owns the debt and the corporations through holding companies and other means of concealment. Who owns the debt? What does LaRouche propose to do about the trillions of debt owed by the US? We don’t need tariffs to stop imports. Our credit is dried up. We can no more import the goods we need any more than can Greece. A tariff would only be a figleaf, a scapegoat to explain the end of imports that is already inevitable.

      The bottom line is that LaRouche does not provide what the country needs to lift the surivival rate among American start-up businesses and existing businesses. What it needs is increased demand. Purchasing power. And the money must not be funneled first through the building of some new super railroad across the country. A railroad that will go into receivership as soon as the “national bank” decides it is time to gather up the eggs the chickens have laid, that is, as soon as it decides to contract purchasing power.

      LaRouche has fixed nothing with his scheme.

      What will fix the economy is the American populists’ version of social credit.

      1) Repudiation of debt to the bankers who have defrauded us with system where all of the money is loans that have to be paid back principal plus interest. The terms are impossible to be met in the aggregate and the bankers know this. That is fraud.

      2) Switch to a fiat currency and a banking system which requires 100 percent reserves for loans. Banks can loan what savers put in time savings deposit accounts, but not a penny more. That is we eliminate the fractional reserve banking system.

      Having created a fiat currency and having ended the fractional reserve money system, we next completley separate money creation from the banking function. Banks will have nothing to do with money creation.

      3) All new money will originate in the household sector, as the National Household Dividend will be issued to each citizen by the Department of Commerce. The Household, that is the consumer, will be the first spenders of all new money. In that way consumer demand will direct the market economy. Consumer sovereignty will be a reality, rather than Rothschild sovereignty and Rothschild theft.

      4) The breakup of monopoly power, primarily through the ending of the corporation structure, of the legal personhood of corporations. Instead will will have exclusively the single proprietorship or the partnership — with full liability for the owners in all that they do. There will be none to big to fail because there will be none very big. And there will be no central planning because the consumer with money to spend and will be the force and direction that is signalled to the entrepreneur and that holds out ample reward for the entrepreneur to make the rebuilding of the American economy a profitiable and satisfying thing.

      5) Draft all corporations involved in war industry — an idea of Warren Harding — so that no corporation makes a penny but all of its officers and staff make soldiers pay until the war is over and the corporation goes back to peacetime production — and conversion to non-corporation structure.

      6) End government deficit spending. The people will have cash and if the people want a public good, such as a bridge or a giant project to water the plains or flood Death Valley to make a mini-Mediterrainain Sea and enough hydroelectric power to power both L.A. and San Diego. Or not, as they choose. But the people will have the money they will be able to afford a lobby for the common interest. They will have money and leisure enough (not having to work to pay interest on the national debt and their own debt as well) to become a force in politics — etc. We will have a Jeffersonian Republic, not a Hamiltonian/LaRoucheian Marriage of Big Bank- Big Government and Big Corporations.

      Dick Eastman
      Yakima, Washington

      • Elm says:

        Thank you for a well conceived contribution to the discussion Mr. Eastman.

      • deadeyeblog says:

        Dear Mr. Eastman,

        I want to sincerely express my appreciation that you took the critique seriously and offered a detailed response, rather than resorting to ad hominem, dismissal, etc. I also appreciate that you outlined your 6-point plan for any readers to consider.

        A few caveats:
        1. I have no affiliation with LaRouche or his organization. Clearly, I have drawn a good deal of influence from him and his associates, especially the old “Campaigner” magazines and the writing of Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin.
        2. I won’t take a stand here on Riemann, Liebniz, tensors, the crab nebula or similar topics, unless I’m smoking a joint around a campfire (it’s been a while). I try to keep things more on the level of politics and political economy that an average person can understand.
        3. I don’t have all day.

        Where we agree completely:

        • Repudiation of illegitimate debts.
        • Opposition to (and I believe the critique of) Austrian economics, the gold standard and deflation.
        • Fiat currency – though I’m not opposed to physical “reality” standards like the central gov holding reserves of grain, ores, etc. at parity.

        Where we could find common ground:

        I’m not opposed to the use of “household credit” as a means to increase purchasing power, ESPECIALLY as you suggest to transition back into an industrial economy. Example: In 2000, something like 75% of textiles bought in the US were made in the US. Today, it’s roughly 0. We need the industry, the jobs and the money. The only way to do it is to tariff low-wage countries like El Salvador. But this is not an automatic shift. We’d need a transition process to restart industry – research help from national laboratories, 0% public loans to build factories and payrolls, and either direct cash to families to purchase the more expensive products or subsidy to the textile manufacturers in the form of price supports. The idea is to scale down support as employment and living standards rose up.

        I don’t believe LaRouche would disagree with what I’m saying, and I think you’re mischaracterizing him by assuming he’d build the factories and call it a day. Look at what Lincoln did with the homestead act, FDR with the CCC, etc. Lifting up the consumer doesn’t have to be in the form of expendable cash. If, for example, there were widespread relief for mortgages, student loans, health insurance, etc., the household net income would rise automatically. You’d pay more for food and t-shirts and less for debt, as it should be. Clearly there’s truth in the mechanics of what you discuss, but what you describe is a political solution, not a self-evident “mechanical” process, as CH Douglas seemed to believe.

        There’s no such thing as “economics,” only “political economy.” The issue between you and me is whether and to what extent the public interest can be expressed through a representative body.

        If you want to see how the free market attempts to solve the textile problem, look at Etsy, where stay-at-home moms make shitty kids’ clothes in their garages. Without central coordination and help, things like this either don’t happen or take generations.

        Where we disagree completely:

        • Our historical heroes. Hamilton, Lincoln and FDR, imho, are the 3 greatest and most significant Americans in history, and responsible for the 3 great economic miracles of US history. The fact that you and others have to resort to dismissals and unprovable innuendo (ie Hamilton as “Rothschild agent” or FDR orchestrating Pearl Harbor) shows how little ground there is to critique their records.
        – If you want to see the results of your overall policy (omitting the household credit aspect), look at the Andrew Jackson presidency, which is covered briefly in my “Briar Patch” article. It was a disaster, because of the lack of central planning and protectionism. I’ll take 1815, 1870 or 1950 over 1837 any day of the week.

        • Free trade. You have a narrow bias about what free trade is. The text book definition is international trade without taxation or limitation. That doesn’t require a Rothschild. Every factory in the 3rd world is a result of free trade. I have known wealthy people who own factories in the 3rd world, and they’re not part of any cabal.
        Protectionism is about protecting jobs, but also about protecting companies from themselves. Last textile example – manufacturers like Fruit of the Loom went overseas because of central American free trade agreements. If not for that, the industrial managers would have been happy to compete in high-cost America. Now they race to the bottom, and the only winners are the hedge fund managers who sold them out.

        That’s all I’ve got time for at the moment. In short, I’m sure social credit can’t be dismissed entirely, but like the others, I see it as a rotten baby in clean bathwater. There are points of agreement and useful ideas, but the main system ignores some very basic facts.

    • sounds like George et. al who you distinguish between, were in fact variations on the same thing. Or at least the same results.

  3. OzzieThinker says:

    The problem is no one is inclined to tell the truth whether they support “virtue” or “valor”. From the Norman Conquest of 1066 a silent war converted the population masses. Peoples were aligned to anarchist communist tribes who pooled resources in communities similar to “Mirs”. They then became feudal tenants forced to farm lands that were once free. The emergence of big banking promoted land ownership and real estate and all those “spin offs”. This inevitably lead to the mortgage. Bauer/Rothschild only exploited the arrogance of royalty – if the truth be known.

    What is sad is no one focuses on modern alternatives to manufactured tyranny. For instance, until recently Jacques Fresco and his Venus Project was still current. Sadly Jacques believes [if he is still alive] that human beings are not corrupt. It is only the education process which corrupts. Whereas I believe the “education process” is evidence of the desire for all human beings to be complicitly corrupt. As of 2010, Jacques was proposing a pooled resources, no money society. He also had worked out that barter is just a form of money. His model was built on the concept of gradually less limited freedom for all.

    The article writer’s summary is ENTIRELY WRONG. There is no difference between Judaism and Capitalism. “Thou shalt not steal” created ownership from thin air. According to the Pentateuch a Jew must pay 5 shekels to avoid the blood sacrafice of the first born. Pay to whom and why????!!!!! Judaism is a “user pays” tyranny and humanity is in ‘denial’.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      The Venus project is one thing Alex Jones and I can agree upon completely. Fresco wasn’t even capable of running a neighborhood – how do you think an entire “cooperative” civilization would do?

      The “modern alternative to manufactured tyranny” is the constitutional republic. The rules are somewhat elastic, the laws can be made and repealed, and you get to vote for your representatives. It’s never been perfect, but it’s a good system when people understand what their own interests are. Dumb people in Connecticut, not the Rothschilds, are responsible for Joe Lieberman.

      And speaking of which, when did I talk about Judaism?

      • OzzieThinker says:

        “Your enemy is not big government, Jews, communists or the Catholic church”

        WRONG. It is all of the above because they are one.

        Jacques Fresco does not capture the will of the people and the very same manipulation with coerces “ordered society” would reign. The Jewish funded sychophant Alex Jones is not on my list of resources and the point I made is “at least” Fresco has come up with an alternive to the “thou shalt not steal” robber-barons.

        I do not dispute that, and I conclude in my book’s chapter “profits before deliverables”, that commerce and capitalism handled rightly could be the perfect solution for society. The problem is for that to come into effect deliverables would always supercede profits. Under the guise of that paradigm shift of thinking, incomes would cease to be important as fiscal purpose would be devoted to aiding the transaction and not NOBBLING THE OPOSITION!

        Under a deliverables before profits model, business would be compelled to aid its competitors!

        • Elm says:

          I believe we must be careful to define what we mean or intend by “INCOME.” Originally, INCOME was in reference to Corportate INCOME & PROFIT. The reason for this is, a Corporate or Legal Fiction, now a “PERSON,” is not a human being, & thus has no intrinsic capacity to exchange its labor for wages. If a man of moral & ethical thought & action, of independent volition agrees to enter of his own free will & informed consent into contract to exchange his labor for wages, where is the INCOME or the PROFIT? Rather, this is a value-for-value exchange – ideally a fair & not a “Free” exchange. Corporations prefer a “Free” exchange because it permits Corporate Owners – a more recent Fictional Creature of Commerce & Its Owners – yesterdays Old World Land”Lord’s,” to conduct themselves in Feudalistic Fashion for PROFIT in an expropriation of the capital of labor as a cost of doing business, all from behind the Corporate Interface of Limited Liability – the Legal obfuscations of Commerce & so-called Corporate Citizenship & Personhood.

          Indeed, the Corporate Fiction today pretentiously claims the Legal Color-of-Human-Rights to human Privacy & “Free” Speech, in truth, the innate capacities only of living souls & not of Corporate Vampires. See, “Corporate Vampires” by Rich Zubaty who begins, “American wasn’t always like this.” As Thomas Jefferson knew, The INCOME TAX, for decades surreptitiously construed – by-en-large & insofar as it is applied as a tax or a bounty on a man’s labor & wages, is a slavery tax. This is a self-evident truth, in that the IRS claims 100% of the fruits of a man’s labor which it defaces as Corporate INCOME, insofar as the human being is seduced with a benefit to form Legal Joinder with a Corporate Person, the Fictional or Legal Creature of The Federal Entity. To be sure, a tax on the labor & wages of a man is anathema to George, who defines all wages as having being created by labor for its own sake, & not paid from the capital or wealth of another. George is in fact, a fair trade & open market capitalist, who believed in the principle of social justice.

      • Elm says:

        If you follow the Venus Project to its logical conclusion, it is a recipe for authoritarianism & mass genocide. Some good ideas, but the flies in the ointment are too numerous. Human beings will always require a medium of exchange, in one form or another. The proposed cashless society lends itself perfectly to the NWO.

        • OzzieThinker says:

          On this point I absolutely agree with you, Elm. Jacques Fresco’s logic is flawed in three ways. Firstly he believes “correct education” will solve the world’s problems. Yet the reason nonsense is offered as education is because the writers and their stakeholders benefit. Secondly he criticises “truth seekers” as part of a wider conspiracy referencing Einstein’s analysis of truth [which is an impossible concept as there is always “another layer”]. Yet “truth seeker” is an expression used for one who wants to demystify the nonsense churned by agenda driven “education”, “history” or “science”. Thirdly his quixotic behaviour when discussing God and atheism suggests he fears the complexity of the experience we call life.

          The manipulators with be in place regardless of systems imposed.

  4. Elm says:

    Look for “Corporate Vampires” by Rich Zubaty on the internet. The Corporate Vampire is fully commensurate with Malthusian Feudal Economic Ideology & Monopoly Corporate Cartel Collectivism. Corporatism destroys capitalism, whereby labor is disenfranchised of its prior & superior natural claim to the capital & wealth it produces for its own sake.As American statesman Thomas Jefferson correctly noted, an income, applied as a wage tax, is a slavery tax. There is much confusion over Commercial vs common law & prerogatives.
    Whereas the American constitutional form of government was established for human beings with a capacity for moral & ethical thought & action of independent volition, it has been surreptitiously infiltrated & hijacked by Law-Of-The-Sea & Corporate Fiction.

  5. carl says:

    no doubt , the british empire is the seventh …. the beast that was but is not will come out of the 7th and he himself is the 8th and will lead into destruction .what countries were in the empire ,i know not ? being naive in such matters i will speak of what little i know …. today there are two seedlines of people , those of Christ and those of the antichrist and that is in those two boys of Isaac , jacob and esau …. jumping ahead , man is spiritual beings in this body of flesh for man was created in the image of God . let me ask you a question , will you confess with your MOUTH that the Lord Jesus ,the Messiah came in the FLESH .. if you cannot speak it with your mouth (out loud) then you are not of God and you would be a spirit of the Antichrist . we are to try the spirits and see if they are of God ! you look at someone right between the eyes and see what that spirit(in that person) will answer . It might surprise you . all people are going to be of jacob or of esau and the enemy is ?

    • Elm says:

      How convenient for your myopic & narrow minded self-righteousness tyranny.

      How about Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jainists, Nazarenes, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Sikh’s, Jews, Zoroastrians, Bahai etc., etc? Are all the morally righteous of these faiths in your limited estimation the so-called “spirit of the anti-Christ the “enemy?” What complete & utter self-serving nonsense. All the righteous of this world have a place in the world to come, even self-identified Christians. Millions of decent & God-fearing human beings have perished at the hands of religio-fascist people JUST LIKE YOU, even millions of those whom you refer to as the lineage of Jacob, who became Israel! Quite convenient really… plagiarize the Israelite Messiah, who unlike the Roman Caesar was never a god, & murder millions of his family members in his name. What complete & unmitigated hypocracy! “Try the spirits & see if they are of God” indeed. To worship a man or the image of a man as a god is on its face simple idolatry. Indeed, it is God Who will be “trying the spirits,” not you. Romanism is of Esau. The Messiah is of the Davidic line, & will be an annoited man of God, not a god. Neither was David a god, but a Messiah, meaning anointed one of the Israelite nation. Jesus was never annoited.

      • Gregory Fegel says:

        Jesus never existed as a person on earth. Jesus is only a recycled version (one of many) of the mythical sun god. The sayings attributed to Jesus are Hellenistic and Gnostic philosophy, composed by the anonymous philosophers who wrote the New Testament. Virgin birth (from the earth goddess), walking on water, transforming water into wine, producing an abundance of food, and rising from the dead after three days (of the solstice) are all attributes of the mythical sun god. There is no historical Jesus.

        • OzzieThinker says:

          I’ll pick up on Elm’s points first, which I must confess for the most part are well argued. However the Preist-King Messiah-Christs do not have have a good record beyond “furthering the interests” of the true Israelite. Therefore in conjunction with tradition of the true King “bringing peace on earth”, the original concept is dead, for that would either involve the systematic geoncide of all goyim or it qould permit a goyim King as humanity is substantively non-Israelite. The four gospels go to great lengths to demonstrate Jesus was sufficiently annoited for the purposes of the Messiah [particularly in Matthew who was attempting to specifically “prove” Jesus was the Messiah]. However his “attack” on the [bad] Israelite makes a case for him being the anti-Christ certainly from the Nationalist “Zionist” perspective.

          In response to Gregory, you are also only partially right with your response. There is a “theory” that Jesus was a mythical construction of an Italian nobleman. Nevertheless if he had the power and money to propagate a the Christian “myth” he also had the resources to surpress and destroy any Roman historical evidence of Jesus. It is clear for my studies, that his interpretation of Scripture was so unique that Jesus was a “real person” even if the name was “code”. I believe he was a double agent funded by the Zealot hierarchy [and obviously well connected as a consequence]. He mingled with the “poor” to spy on them, but as an exceptional conscious being, something unexplainable happened – he found empathy in the plight of the “foe”. The grand establishment have tried to confuse things ever since, because what his MESSAGE stands for is the colapse of known tyranny. Against a complex political tapestry, historical texts are difficult to deconstruct and therefore invariably mislead the reader into believing something that is not.

          The “miracles” and other devices either are in place to confuse or are simply misunderstood idiom. For instance the birth stories and Mark’s ressurection account are likely added. Whereas Mark’s account of the “raising of Lazarus” was excised as it made Jesus look homosexual and it trivialised the “death raising” experience to a humble ceremony.

          • Gregory Fegel says:

            OzzieThinker wrote: “There is a “theory” that Jesus was a mythical construction of an Italian nobleman.”

            I have not heard of that Italian nobleman, and my opinion of the Jesus myth is not based on the opinion of an “Italian nobleman,” but on my own cross-cultural study of world mythology, which has shown me that the Jesus myth is based on many previous myths, all of which described the personified sun as a World Savior. The myths are redundant and formulaic across cultures.

            The Gospels (which appeared at least 40 years or more after the death of the alleged Jesus) are not historical documents; they describe miraculous events for which there is no proof. Nor do the Gospels, or any other early documents, provide any serious evidence that Jesus ever existed.

            • OzzieThinker says:

              The arguments are that the Roman Piso family constructed “Jesus myths”. However the Nag Hammedi scrolls in their destinctly gnostic [non Roman] writing style quash the theory resolutely. Also many of Jesus’ philosophies are quintessentially anti-Roman in flavour and certainly anti-NWO. Those that postulate the Piso black nobility theory also claim that the current hidden world government is extricably linked to the plot.

              It may also surprise you that there has been far more written about the the historical Jesus than evidence to support the existence of Julius Caesar, for instance. The problem most people have is the “mythical nature” of the texts. Most “sane” people would except Jesus as real if all the miracles were removed. Grab ye a copy of the 8th Century manuscript “Bede’s Ecclesiastes” and you will find miracles were flourishing 800 years after Jesus’ death. Clearly a style of ceremonial writing was being used to codify the significance of events. Mark’s account of the “raising of Lazarus” reads like a pantomime with the reader never confused that the ceremony was anything more than a mock raising of the dead [which I believe is why it was removed as it calls the reader to question all “miracles”].

          • Gregory Fegel says:

            It’s well that you should mention the shortage of verifiable records for the existence of an historical Julius Caesar. We have good reason to think that the 12 Caesars are a mythological construct, like the 12 Tribes of Israel, the 12 Apostles, and the 12 Kings of the Incas. Caesar is an honorific title, related to the Russian Tsar, or Czar.

            The name Julius Caesar means the “King of the Year.” According to Pliny the Elder, the name Caesar originated with an ancestor who was born by caesarian section — an historically unlikely event that is comparable to a mythological virgin birth. Julius Caesar’s father governed Asia (as did Dionysos) and Julius Caesar was associated with elephants (as was Alexander and Shiva). Julius Caesar replaced the lunar calendar with the Julian Calendar, which was based on the solar cycle. Julius Caesar was posthumously deified as Divus Iulius. Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon (Red River) to invade Italy.

            Plutarch, one of Julius Caesar’s chief biographers, described himself as a priest of the Sun God. According to Plutarch, Julius Caesar was warned by a haruspex (a soothsayer who reads omens from the entrails of animals) to “beware the Ides of March,” and the evening before his assassination, Julius Caesar dined with Marcus Lepidus (the March Hare).

            The rule of Julius Caesar was followed by that of Augustus; Iulius was the fifth month of the Roman year, and Augustus was the sixth month. There’s more, but I’ll leave it at that.

            • OzzieThinker says:

              I don’t dispute what you say, but you must understand that the writers of these times had a different concept of “truth” and “history”. My study of Roman and Greek writings is limited, but it seems clear that the narative line had to be other worldly to engage the readership. Indeed the Bible’s new testament “Romanised” writings follow a similar style where the super-natural forever seems to ghost the narative line. Taking ancient Jewish history, it did not have to be cronologically correct. Indeed a group of independent and unrelated events might be strung together to make a point. An example is the Noah flood story which [according to my thesis] is infact a description of the first Jewish temple with specific comparments to house the many and varied creatures required for burnt offerings. This was overlaid against an catastrophic flood event many 1000’s of years earlier in Russia to accent the significance of the temple.

              The use of soothsayers and contempt of human rights (in the use of slaves) is very much a feature of the Sol Invictus “cult”, but that is historical. People of these times were sticklers for traditiion, so the numerical symetry of “history” can be explained. Maybe there many more Caesers who were not recorded because that would defy the “requirement” of 12? Were there 12 tribes of Israel and 12 Disciples [500 Apostles] or were these “figurative” quotas?

  6. Interesting article, but I do not think that you give a fair representation of Social Credit or Distributism.

    It is wrong to conflate Fabians and Social Creditists:

    ‘In early years of the movement, Labour Party leadership resisted pressure from Trade unionists to implement Social Credit, as hierarchical views of Fabian socialism, economic growth and full employment, were incompatible with the National Dividend and abolishment of wage slavery suggested by Douglas. In an effort to discredit the Social Credit movement, one leading Fabian, Sidney Webb, is said to have declared that he didn’t care whether Douglas was technically correct or not – they simply did not like his policy.[35]‘

    Deadeyeblog: “Your enemy is not big government, Jews, communists or the Catholic church, but “The British Empire” – a transnational system of financial speculation, cartels, war machines and its attendant propaganda and elaboration.”

    OK, fine. Assuming that this is true, please explain to me how distributism favors “financial speculation” or “cartels”:

    ‘Distributism favors the dissolution of the current private bank system, or more specifically its profit-making basis in charging interest. […] Distributists look favorably on credit unions as a preferable alternative to banks.’

    ‘Distributism appears to have one of its greatest influences in anti-trust legislation in America and Europe designed to break up monopolies and excessive concentration of market power in one or only a few companies, trusts, interests, or cartels.’

    Finally, it appears to me that you are overly influenced by the writings of Larouche and the EIR. I admit that they often present interesting viewpoints, but they are also promoting their own ideas and their views on Distributism and other movements seem biased (to say the least).

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Sorry for the delay – I have a spam filter on comments with links.
      I appreciate the comments. My basic view is that any system where power is less centralized than it is in Wall Street and cartels is a system that favors those interests. I’m sure there are many favorable things to say about distributism, social credit and their promoters. The article probably seems overly dismissive because I tried to keep it short.
      The point is, in my opinion, that any system proposing to do anything less than “The American System” is inadequate at best. The Fabians promoted these ideas to create skirmishes and draw support away from the real thing. It’s not that “TPTB” want social credit as a system – it’s that social credit is a confusing mess with several big holes, and to have intelligent people spending their energy arguing about it reduces the chance of a unified voice for something like the New Deal.
      The Austrian School is closer to the true doctrine of the British Empire, but these leftist niches just help divide and conquer.

  7. TheAntiMalthusian says:

    I think Dick Eastman’s strategy is to leave a comment that is so long and boring that no one will respond to it, then he tells himself that he is right because no one has a reply to his argument. Dick, there are numerous errors in your “analysis,” mostly erroneous statements concerning your understanding of economics and LaRouche’s viewpoints. For instance, LaRouche never claimed to use Riemannian math in his “Riemannian Economics.” Your understanding of economics as mathematical is typical of the modern day corruption of economics. His use of the term comes from Riemann’s “Habilitationsschrift,” specifically his discussion of the nature of the universe and the assumptions implicit in most geometry and mathematics. For instance, read the end of it where Riemann states: “The question of the validity of the hypotheses of geometry in the infinitely small is bound up with the question of the ground of the metric relations of space. In this last question, which we may still regard as belonging to the doctrine of space, is found the application of the remark made above; that in a discrete manifold, the ground of its metric relations is given in the notion of it, while in a continuous manifold, this ground must come from outside. Either therefore the reality which underlies space must form a discrete manifold, or we must seek the ground of its metric relations outside it, in binding forces which act upon it.

    The answer to these questions can only be reached by starting from the conception of phenomena which has hitherto been justified by experience, and which Newton assumed as a foundation, and by making in this conception the successive changes required by facts which it cannot explain. Researches starting from general notions, like the investigation we have just made, can only be useful in preventing this work from being hampered by too narrow views, and progress in knowledge of the interdependence of things from being checked by traditional prejudices.

    This leads us into the domain of another science, that of physics, into which the object of today’s proceedings does not allow us to enter.”

    In other words, mathematics is not useful for solving these questions, and it is only exploration in physical science that will provide clues to how to solve these questions. This, along with the study of Leibniz’s scientific economics and American system economists like Hamilton and Carey, allowed LaRouche to gain a critical insight into the nature of real economic progress that is entirely lacking from the mere mathematical economics of British imperial economists and their offspring. I would suggest finding an old video made by the LaRouche movement in the 1980s called “The Power of Labor” which is the best video I have ever seen from them explaining the method of LaRouche in economics. Bring a pad and paper, there is a lot of learning to be had from that video, but only if you put the work in.

  8. TheAntiMalthusian says:

    Also Eastman’s characterization of Alexander Hamilton as an agent of the Bank of England and the Rothschilds reveals the depth of his political education, namely unsourced internet documentaries. In reality the British Empire hated Alexander Hamilton’s system and did everything they could to destroy it. But of course, to discover that truth, one needs to go back and read actual primary historical documents, not watch internet documentaries, so I think that’s a bit outside of Eastman’s league.

    • Elm says:

      Well O.K., let’s go back & take a look at some earlier perspectives about both Hamilton & include Thomas Jefferson. Who were they? What were their basic backgrounds & respective attitudes towards a Privately controlled central bank?

      In his 1899 book “The Coming Battle: A Complete History Of The National Banking Money Power In The United States,” author M.W. Walbert writes…

      “The Declaration of Independence, which announced the true principles of government, was a memorable protest against the rapacious money power composed of landed aristocracy, the trading, commercial, and manufacturing interests of England, which, by a long series of vicious and unconstitutional acts of Parliament, sought to eat out the substance of the colonists — The war of the Revolution which followed, set its seal of approval upon the patriotic efforts of the colonists against oppression, and freedom was achieved.”

      “Upon the conclusion of that most righteous conflict, a more perfect union was formed to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and posterity by the adoption of the Federal constitution — General Washington was chosen the first President by a unanimous vote.”

      “For his constitutional advisers he appointed Thomas Jefferson for Secretary of State; Alexander Hamilton for Secretary of the Treasury; James Knox for Secretary of War; and Edmond Randolph for Attorney General.”

      “Jefferson, who was the most accomplished scholar in America, the profoundest thinker upon the principles of government of any age, the friend of humanity and (contrary to Rockefeller who said the common man couldn’t govern himself) a staunch believer in the capacity of the common people for self-government, was a representative of that industrial element which sustains society by its labors.” In my view, Jefferson could quite easily have been a Georgist.

      “Hamilton,” on the other hand, “who was an aristocrat by birth and breeding, and who was connected by marriage with the wealthiest family of the landed aristocracy of New York, was a strong representative for the trading, banking and commercial element of New York City and New England, which constituted the Tory element of the Revolution — The presence of two statesmen of such wholly antagonistic views and temperaments in the cabinet of Washington, naturally originated divisions of political sentiment, from which sprang the two great political parties.” Hamilton would likely have aligned himself with Malthus.

      This is where it becomes interesting relative to Hamilton’s bias when it came to banking. Author Walbert writes, “One of the first measures which received the aid and sanction of Hamilton was the act of Congress, adopted February 25, 1791, chartering the Bank of The United States,” a Private Monopoly. Indeed, as author Walbert reports, “This monopoly believed in the Hamiltonian maxim that a “Public debt is a public blessing,” and, during its career as the fiscal agent of the Government, threw every obstacle in the way of the payment of the national debt.” To be sure, a Public debt to a Private Banking Monopoly, is a blessing to the Banksters, not the public.

      “Jefferson, whose penetrating mind perceived the vast power for mischief lodged in an institution of that nature, in a powerful communication with the President, advised him to veto the bill — Washington, however, accepted the views of Hamilton, his Secretary of the Treasury, and signed the bill, and it became law.” Indeed, it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote in a letter to John Tyler May 28, 1816, “…I sincerely believe with you that the banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” Jefferson was a man of the people.

      “By the terms of the act incorporating the bank, its capital was fixed at ten millions of dollars. The power to issue its circulating notes as money having full legal tender quality for the payment of taxes and demands due the Government was conferred upon it. It was made a depository for the revenues of the Government, and therefore it became the fiscal agent of the Treasury department. It was chartered for the period of twenty years — For the extensive powers and exclusive privileges bestowed upon it by Congress, the bank paid the United States a small bonus.”

      “This bank, therefore, was a monopoly sustained by the credit and the revenues of the United States. It had the sole power of issuing legal tender paper money, and its actual capital was trebled in its earning capacity by loaning its circulating notes (created from nothing) at interest, and by having control of government revenues (and also a disproportionate degree of influence over all the most essential political & economic outcomes) — This was the first appearance of an organized money power (centered in the City of London) in the United States – Fashioned after the Bank of England.”

      So, what was it you were saying about how the “British Empire hated Alexander Hamilton’s system and did everything they could to destroy it?”

      • deadeyeblog says:

        Gee – this passage isn’t biased at all. But I’ll trust MW Walbert, who nobody ever heard of before or since this was written (which by the writing style was certainly not 1899).

        1. Hamilton was not an aristocrat. He was born of a single mother and a drunk who he met once or twice on a Caribbean slave island (Nevis). He was brought to New York to apprentice at a trading house because he wrote a popular essay for a newspaper. He did marry rich, as he had quickly risen in New York society through his own efforts and accomplishments. Read the bio by Ron Chernow – it’s a fascinating life, and you will come away with tremendous respect for at least the person of Hamilton.

        Jefferson on the other hand was the son of a slave-owning planter, owned scores of slaves, a huge plantation, and at least enough land to create the University of Virginia. He was hanging out in France while Hamilton was helping run the revolutionary war.

        2. The first bank of the US had a fixed percentage (I think 25%) of its stock owned by private investors, and the rest was fiat public credit. The stock was necessary to make the country credit-worthy in foreign trade, and the national debt was necessary to sell the stock and keep the economy growing.

        The reason a national debt is a national blessing is because (under a national bank) it never need be repaid, and no interest is paid on it. It represents the “circulating credit” of the nation, where every dollar in federal debt is a dollar of economic activity in one of the states. In Hamiltonian terms, it’s not a dollar borrowed from Rothschild. It’s a dollar LENT to an American business.

        • Elm says:

          Are you implying there is no interest on the national debt?

          The full faith & credit credit of the nation need not be predicated upon the debt capital monetized by Privately owned & controlled Banking Institutions, such as the euphemistically named Federal Reserve, which by the way, whose Private currency is an interest bearing fiat currency, by-en-large backed by the debt servitude of the American people. This is why Lincoln opted to issue interest free Greenbacks, because of the extremely high interest that was being demanded of the North by New York Bankers, who of course were tied to London Banking Interests. The idea was to split America into a North & a South, wherein at a depleted stage of the war, Great Britain would enter as a “peace broker,” with both sides hobbled by post war debt to London & New York Banking. Essentially, Lincoln out-manouvered them, & albeit temporarily, the Banksters failed to profit from either the South or the North.

          Can you explain how, if a debt “never need be repaid,” & “no interest is paid on it,” that this translates into “credit worthiness?” Can I make an appointment for a loan? Maybe this is what excited Hamilton. Quite a tool, if you can buy off electors with money that need never be repaid. No accountability, & room for lots of corruption here. Have you ever heard the saying, “those who pay the bills call the shots?”

          Joseph Farrell in Babylon’s Banksters; The Alchemy of Deep Physics, High Finance and Ancient Religion, reports on these words written by German Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck in 1876, about the fiscal policies of the Lincoln Administration… “I know of absolute certainty, that the division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial (Feudal) powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over Europe and the world. Of course, in the `inner circle’ of Finance, the voice of the Rothschilds prevailed. They saw an opportunity for prodigeous booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies burdened with debt to the financiers… in place of a vigorous republic sufficient unto herself. Therefore, they sent their emissaries (agent provocateurs) into the field to exploit the question of slavery and to drive a wedge between the two parts of the Union… The rupture between the North and the South became inevitable; the masters of European finance employed all their forces to bring it about and to turn it to their advantage.”

          “There was one problem,” writes Farrell. “President Lincoln refused to go into war debt to the private class of (Feudalist) banksters to fund the Northern effort in the Civil War.” Once again writes Farrell, “Chancellor Bismarck’s comment is worth citing — “The government and the nation escaped the plots of the foreign financiers. They understood at once, that the United States would escape their grip. The death of Lincoln was resolved upon.”

          Remember the scene in Patriot, in which Gen. Lord Charles Cornwallis is discussing the post Revolutionary war division of America into Old World Feudal Fifedoms, you know, after they defeated the un-civilized American rabble? And what did President Andrew Jackson proclaim as his greatest life long victory on his death bed? He “beat the banks.” Indeed, one of his most famous quotes is, “The bank, Mr. Van Buren, is trying to kill me, but I will kill it.” If Lincoln’s Greenback Dollars would have survived, America would have been a much different nation today, and her people & the world much better for it.

          • deadeyeblog says:

            “Debt” has different meanings. In a Hamiltonian banking system (which is NOT what we have today, but is the central component of The American System of political economy), “debt” is a mere ledger entry. The federal government lends $1 million to Illinois to build a bridge – So the national debt is $1 million. The Treasury doesn’t have to borrow a mil and lend it back out. It “finances its own debt” by extending credit to Illinois with the expectation of being repaid.

            The idea “A national debt, if not excessive, is a blessing” implies that if the federal government always has credit extended to public and private debtors, there is always work being done to repay the debt. No debt, no work.

            This is not the same as borrowing from the federal reserve or you going into debt with your credit card. You are not a sovereign bank.

            As for corruption, it will never go away. But all appropriations are made when your representative passes a bill. Don’t like where the credit from a national bank is going? Vote for someone else. At least you’ve got someone to hold accountable, as opposed to the Federal Reserve or the gold standard.

            BTW – The Lincoln greenback is the epitome of Hamiltonian banking. Lincoln didn’t need to sell bonds to foreign banks because the country was sufficiently developed not to need many imports. In the 1780s New York City had 30,000 people, the country had very little industry, etc. It was the Hamiltonian system of the First National Bank, a pro-manufacturing and -infrastructure policy that got the country to where Lincoln could tell Europe to go to hell.

        • OzzieThinker says:

          I like this comment – sharp and to the point. However, I think this issue is summarised in the previous comment regards “free trade”. There are three concurrent problems that run perenially. Taking away selfish pursuit and “assuming” all is fair, a standards based/commodity stocked(highest bidder)/investment fantasy inter-locked system can and will never work. In fact the only fair system is zero inflation (probably single currency) standards based one. Bank charges would have to be fee based, transparent and limited. Problem two is free trade, which may be “conceptually free” but in fact ends up cartel owned. This is because the local trader cannot compete will ‘big money’ in a competitive environment. Therefore the “free market” will see marxist-communism and the total enslavement of humanity beneath the corporate machine. Not good. Thirdly, and most importantly, with the introduction of the feudal system people lost their freedom. Now most have lost their land (which they always “rented” anyway). Whether they like it or not most are individually subject to the mercy of their governors. Therefore in a “fair system” with regulated commodities/profits and no “value added” charges the danger arrises that the financial “balance” is unable to support the existing population. In a sense the creation of fantasy money solves that problem. It still boils down to greed versus social capitulation. Currently the world operates on the exploitation model. This would need to change to universal social cooperation. There are signs this might be possible, but we seem a million miles away from it right now 😦

          • Elm says:

            Further to your comment, I liken the current system of economy to allopathic medicine — a closed & self-serving system of mutual predation, wherein rather than amending causes treats & capitalizes upon symptoms. Whether of finance or medicine, both the economy & a majority of the people today, especially in the west, are in a state of sub-clinical illness rather than robust health. Naomi Klein touches somewhat on the predatory dimensions of our economy in her book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Ideologically & eschatologically, allopathy is an all encompassing spiritual, mental & economic paradigm. Richard Leviton has written an excellent book on this subject titled, “phy-si-cian: Medicine and The Unsuspected Battle for Human Freedom. One may even describe the current allopathic medical system as Malthusian — one that reduces & treats human beings as so many items of inventory in a Virtual Corporate Warehouse.

            Leviton writes, “The psysis (body, as in phy-si-cian or body management) is in jeopardy today because modern scientific allopathy, the prevailing mechanistic, materialist model underlying Western medicine, has commandeered it. Allopathy has hyjacked the human psysis inwardly through enforced vaccinations, antibiotics, and invasive, militaristic therapeutics, and outwardly through the medical practices acts which guarantee M.D.s a virtual medical monopoly in this country and prohibit or restrict through licensure the free practice of natural psysis-friendly therapeutics (most significantly, homeopathy, naturopathy, and accupuncture).” Remember, for Corporate Cartel Feudalists like Rockefeller, “competition is a sin.” Further, Leviton writes, “Allopathy has commandeered us intellectually by coloring with its biases the way we think about, understand, position, and describe illness (an engineering of perception). In practical terms, this means as individuals we do not have the choice (because most are not aware of the possibilities) in most instances to allow our organism — the psysis — to respond to an illness process in any way other than the allopathic interventionist approach. This is a violation of our medical freedom and an infringement of the basic democratic right of individuality.”

            Just as Naomi Klein writes about “Disaster Capitalism,” Leviton writes about Disaster Medicine. The two are flip-sides of the same allopathic or psychopathic coin. Indeed, given psychoanalysis, a Corporate Entity, devoid of both conscience & soul, self-serving without a capacity for moral & ethical action of independent volition, is in clinical terms a psychopath. Properly understood, Corporatism actually destroys both the innovative & creative potentials of capitalism.

            We must transition from an economy predicated upon fear, insecurity & mutual predation to one founded upon trust, confidence & mutual affirmation. The allopathic model of both economy & medicine reminds one of a reference from the Index of Henry George’s book Progress & Poverty — “. . . The promised land flies before us like the mirage. The fruits of the tree of knowledge turn as we grasp them to apples of Sodom that crumble at the touch…” [Henry George, Progress & Poverty 1879:8]

            What American needs now, is an economic philosophy, if the people can get one. Why, because an economic philosophy is the engine of all economic activity, for worse of better, reductionist or progressive. The way I see it, it’s a choice between British born allopathic economic theoretician Thomas Malthus, & American born economic philosopher & humanitarian Henry George. We must choose wisely.

            • Elm says:

              Small correction — “What American needs now, is an economic philosophy, if the people can get one. Why, because an economic philosophy is the engine of all economic activity, for worse OR better, reductionist or progressive.

            • OzzieThinker says:

              Elm, I can say wholeheartedly we are “on the same page” after your last couple of comments. That is the problem, but too many criticise Rockefeller for being honest. I would like too see more transparency issued by the “guard” old & new so we can get on with the revolution. It is a shame that the power brokers’ balls aren’t as large as their surrogate mouths.

            • Gregory Fegel says:


              A large percentage of illness is caused by people’s lifestyles; if people had healthy lifestyles, they would have far less need to seek help from allopaths, homeopaths, naturopaths, accupuncturists, or what-have-you.

              Actually, most allopaths do advise their patients to have healthy lifestyles, but many patients do not follow their allopath’s advice to loose weight, exercise, stop smoking, limit their use of alcohol, and avoid risky behaviors. It’s not the allopath’s fault if the patient gets sick due to ignoring the allopath’s advice.

              It’s erroneous to say that allopaths treat only “symptoms,” while only homeopaths, naturopaths, accupuncturists, and other alternative medicos teach “prevention.” Actually both the allopaths and the alternative medicos teach “prevention,” but a large percentage of their patients aren’t practicing what they’ve been taught. Due to the failure of the patients to practice “prevention,” the allopaths, homeopaths, naturopaths, accupuncturists, and other alternative medicos all wind up treating “symptoms” (diseases).

              If allopathy was eliminated as a medical option, and if allopathy was entirely replaced by homeopathy, naturopathy, accupuncture, and other alternative methods, the problem would still remain — of patients not following their physicians’ advice to live a healthy lifestyle — and the alternative physicians would still be treating “symptoms” as a result.

            • Gregory Fegel says:


            • Elm says:

              Gregory Fegel

              I do not concur with your obfuscation of allopathy & its alleged beneficient & concerned intent. Just for starters, allopathy is a system of opposites that destroys biology & immunity, whereas homeopathy is a system of similars that calls upon & activates the bodies natural immunity. Also, anti-biologicals destroy positive intestinal flora & most often cause an associated symptomatic bloom of Candida albicans & their micotoxins. Allopathy is always at war with biology & like pesticide laden allopathic food crops, causes a cascading collateral damage. Quite simply, allopathy operates under the pretext of being about health. To the contrary, allopathy cannot palliate to health, but like today’s sophist lawyers & attorneys, only to sickness & adversity. There is neither money nor control in health for allopathy. Allopathy is a closed system that infects the entire terrain — political, cultural & social, but in most cases not spiritual, because as Richard Leviton notes in “phy-si-cian: Medicine and the Unsuspected Battle for Human Freedom,” allopathy by definition is anti-spirit — against the human soul, just as it also makes war against the physis. Quoted by Leviton, anthroposophist Rudolf Steiner writes that today’s allopathic medicine has an “occultic” purpose, that is to “rigidify and mechanize all earthly life, to make the whole earth a realm of death, in which everything possible would be done to kill out independence and every inner impulse of the soul.”

              A “healthy lifestyle” — as if the ambiguous notion of a “lifestyle” itself assures a postive outcome, is a shallow assumption at best. Assuming responsibility for one’s own health, food, diet & environental terrain is where it really begins. The Allopathic System cannot treat health — does not remedy terrain, but to the contrary, often undermines & destroys terrain with under a pretense of health management, often leading to further disease & thus creating a demand for further allopathic medications. Generally, the terrain has been undermined at several levels, from environment & agriculture, to a vastly diminished processed & adulterated Corporate food supply that by-en-large not only fails to advance health, but actually induces sickness. Milk for instance, whose consumption is widely touted & advocated for health, is in fact detrimental to health due to pasteurization & homogenization as well as an adulteration of the cows (now thought of & treated as milk factories) themselves. So, a “healthy lifestyle” will not include processed milk.

              Do no harm is the first law of a properly named “health care system.” Can allopathy claim that its poisons & treatments “do no harm?” If not, then allopathy is little more than a pretentious & bloated fraud – a sickness management system for control & profit. A misinformed, disinformed & disempowered populace will be hard pressed to make responsible choices & decisions as it affects their health. Corporate Media is also complicit. We have a multitude of terrain related issues to correct, that is if it’s “health” we’re really concerned about.

            • Gregory Fegel says:

              Elm wrote: “A “healthy lifestyle” — as if the ambiguous notion of a “lifestyle” itself assures a postive outcome, is a shallow assumption at best. Assuming responsibility for one’s own health, food, diet & environental terrain is where it really begins.”

              “Assuming responsibility for one’s own health, food, diet & environental terrain” is certainly part of what I would call a “healthy lifestyle,” Elm. With a healthy lifestyle, one whould seldom need the services of any physician — allopathic, homeopathic, naturopathic, chiropractic, acupuncturist, faith-healer, or whatever. Do you have your own peculiar definition of what a “lifestyle” is, Elm?

              Elm wrote: “Milk for instance, whose consumption is widely touted & advocated for health, is in fact detrimental to health due to pasteurization & homogenization as well as an adulteration of the cows (now thought of & treated as milk factories) themselves. So, a “healthy lifestyle” will not include processed milk.”

              All domestic livestock and poultry have been bred and “adulterated,” such that no domestic-produced meat or eggs can be regarded as any less “adulterated” than processed milk. The dangers that you attribute to processed milk should equally apply to all meat and eggs. Ergo, the primitive herder who lives mainly on unprocessed milk from free-range cattle, goats, horses, or reindeer would have a healthier diet than any meat-eater, or egg-eater, in a Developed country.

              All of the plants that are cultivated by commercial farmers and home gardeners have been bred for characteristics that have diminished those plants’ nutritional and medicinal value. Only wild plants possess the nutrients and medicinal value that early humans benefitted from.

              With the widespread pollution of the world’s rivers, lakes, and oceans, wild fish are also “adulterated.” In the Developed countries, practically everything that people eat — both animal and vegetable — has been “adulterated.”

              Elm wrote: “Can allopathy claim that its poisons & treatments “do no harm?””

              No. But allopathy, homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture have yet to demonstrate that they do anything at all. It may be safer to seek treatment with a homeopath, a naturopath, a chiropractician, or an acupuncturist — but that doesn’t mean that they can heal you.

            • deadeyeblog says:

              You guys ran off the reservation with this one and kept running, but it’s an interesting topic.
              I’m mostly with Gregory. When my son was born with a congenital heart defect, and we had access to world-class surgeons who fixed his heart when he weighed 10 lbs, “allopathic” medicine was a nice thing to have. Or if you catch malaria, get a mysterious rash, fall off your motorcycle, etc. But I agree that medicine has gone off the rails because of the financial incentives.
              As Hippocrates said, “let food be thy medicine”. Dr. John McDougall has probably cured more chronic diseases by getting people to eat a low-fat, starch-based diet than all acupuncturists and homeopaths in history. “Alternative medicine” is mostly allopathy for primitive people. Acupuncture and chiropractic can produce results, but they’re nothing compared to good diet and exercise habits.
              There’s not a lot of money to be made in promoting healthy lifestyles, unless like most “truthers” you claim whey protein, raw milk and iodine drops are the basis of health.
              Maybe I’ll work up something about diet, medicine, gardening and wild foods so you guys can come back and argue it out…

            • OzzieThinker says:

              Actually this is most relevant. For the my book’s chapter “profits before deliverables”, I currently draw some interesting parallels In the division between the profit collecters and those seeking deliverance it is clear there is a battle going on between those who have faith in nature (God) and those who defy it (immortals). The immortals are desperate to kind the “key to existence” so they can circumvent God completely and live forever by their terms. Those that tinker with genetics without any real understanding of even the short term implications also favour the butcher’s knife and strong, “mind bending” drugs or other “attack methods” to any cooperation with the dreadful God (nature). Yet it is known that illnesses are symtoms of attack with both reversable and irreversable outcomes depending on the damage. Therefore the only way to “cure” the patient is to to find a way under the veneer. Cooperation with nature is in fact the only way to find the cure. That said this would mean an enormous journey for mankind, but as the attacking, God hating profit seekers drive all but a fraction of determined research & development it is no wonder homeopathy has “achieved” relatively little and is scorned as quackery by those ever threatened.

            • Gregory Fegel says:


              Sorry for apparently meandering off-topic. I have never been known as a reliable “Reservation Indian”; mea culpa. Elm wrote that he would “liken the current system of economy to allopathic medicine.” I sought to point out that Elm’s analysis of medical systems might be flawed, which might undermine his comparison of the allopathic medical system to the current economy.

              To Elm and Ozz: (Here I leave the Rez again) Isn’t the principle of homeopathy, which seeks to prevent or cure illness by administering minute doses of the disease-causing substance, comparable to allopathic vaccinations, which likewise seek to prevent illness by administering minute doses of the disease-causing substance?

              For an interesting read, see the short opinion article “Homeopathic Vaccines” at the Science-Based Medicine website.

            • OzzieThinker says:

              Gregory I think you are putting homeopathy “in a box”. There are a range of differing views within the homeopathic aligned “community”. In principle homeopathy concords with nature to leverage against it. Traditional medicines learn from nature to attack it. In the simplest analogy, one goes with the grain and the other goes against. Just as some favour war and others favour diplomancy there is still considerable variance in methods and opinions. The outcome of war is always destruction though, however limited.

  9. TheAntiMalthusian says:

    Eastman is correct though in his assertion that the British Empire used protective tariffs before the repeal of the Corn Laws to progress their own economy. But then he does not go any further by asking why the British prescribed the opposite, free trade, for every other country, and why did his hero Henry George promote the same free trade policy? The answer is because protection would have developed every other country and made them more independent of the British Empire, so obviously they had to promote the opposite, free trade, to prevent that. People like Henry George who promoted free trade over protection were promoting servitude to the British Empire, whether they realized it or not.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Thanks for the comments – totally agreed!

    • Elm says:

      Could you please refer to a direct quote in which George advocated free trade? George was against both monopolies & land speculation. In 1879, George noted that when wages & interest on accumulated capital like savings & pensions were low, rents charged by the Land”Lord” class which would today include Corporate Profit would be high, much like they are today. Nothing much has changed.

      George writes, “As has before been said, in the improvements which advance rent are not only to be included the improvements that directly increase productive power, but also such improvements in government, manners, and morals as indirectly increase it. Considered as material forces, the effect of all these is to increase productive power, and, like improvements in the productive arts, their benefit is ultimately monopolized by the possessors of the land. ***A notable instance of this is to be found in the abolition of protection by Britain***, without lessoning pauperism.” To the contrary, George asserts, “It has simply increased rent. And if the corrupt governments of our great American cities were able to be made models of purity and economy, the effect would simply be to increase the value of land, not to raise either wages or interest.” [Progress & Poverty 1879:254]

      So as George provides, when Britian abolished tarrifs & opened its borders to free trade, it did nothing to solve the problem of poverty, but rather, free trade simply increased both rents charged by the Land”Lord’s” & inflated the value of land to the benefit of the land speculators. So one wonders, if George opposed high rents, which today would include Corporate Profits at the expense of wages & interest on saved capital, & he further noted how an abolition of Britian’s protective tarrifs had a negative impact & dampening affect upon his most basic philosophical precepts, how then can one imagine George would or could have supported free trade?

      • deadeyeblog says:

        The fucking guy wrote a book called “Protectionism or Free Trade” to advocate free trade. All he’s saying here is “you can’t have free trade without also “lessening pauperism,” whatever that means. In the other book he goes full-Paul:


        “…When protection had been abolished and a revenue tariff substituted for a protective tariff, free trade had only won an outpost. That women and children still die of hunger in Great Britain arises from the failure of the reformers to go on. Free trade has not yet been tried in Great Britain. Free trade in its fullness and entirety would indeed abolish hunger.”

        • Elm says:

          Yes, I know exactly what you mean. This is why since so-called Free Trade, almost 50 million Americans are on food stamps, & millions of Americans & Canadians are working for subsistance wages at Wal-Mart & McDonald’s.

          Open your eyes man. If George supported free trade, in his mind this translates as a fair exchange. Free Trade as it is applied today is a Corporate not a human term. For human beings to beable to trade their labor & creative talents value for value in fair exchanges for the necessities & desires of life, freely in an open ended system of unlimited potential & possibilities, is not to be confused with the Closed Monopoly System of Predatory & Unrestricted Corporate “Free Trade” we have been recruited into today, by which labor is pirated & Rents & Profits to the Land”Lord’s” increased, often to obscene levels.

          In the first instance, it was Corporations that paid the INCOME TAX on Corporate Profits, not human beings, whose compensation for labor in wages was to remain un-taxed. “Revenue” in the mind of George NEVER represented the wages of a man or the fruits of a man’s labor, only the unearned INCOME of the Land”Lord’s” & today the INCOME or Profits of Corporations. To depict a man’s wages as Corporate “REVENUE” or INCOME, & degrade a man’s wages as a “cost of doing business,” is a complete obfuscation of wages & their proper relationship to the prior & superior claims a man has by natural law to the fruits of his labor. All labor creates its own wage. Labor no matter at what stage of a production of wealth, is neither a cost nor a demand upon the capital or wealth of another.

          Once again, to confuse fair trade conducted freely & un-hindered between human beings, with a Monopoly Cartel Collectivism FREE of restrictions by Corporations & the Land”Lord’s,” is anathema to the interests of labor & human capital. If you have read George correctly, & you were being a forthright broker of George’s ideas, you would beable to recognize this fundamental & necessary distinction. Or has the fact today, Corporate Profits & Income work to the detriment of labor, escaped you?

          • deadeyeblog says:

            Try explaining this nonsense to your employer. One needn’t wade very far into George’s sophistic gimmicks to realize he’s advocating feudalism.

            • Elm says:

              George a “sophist?” This is a clear projection. The thing George advocated for, was that all land & its productive capacity be held in commons, & not held privately or owned & controlled to the exculsion of all others.

              So, if access to the means of producing wealth – primarily the land & soil which is not created by human effort, which would also include water & air, is feudalistic, then George could be identified as a feudalist. However, characteristic of a Feudal Land”Lord” & closed System of Like Interests — a cartel, wherein the Land”Lord” class seizes control to the means of producing wealth, primarily land & the soil, to the demise of labor & its exploitation, then is not this constitute Feudalism & also, economic servitude? To be sure, land held in a common trust to the benefit of all men eqaully is not Malthusian style feudalism, but facilitates an open & fair market capitalism. George handily refutes the Feudalist Malthus in Progress & Poverty.

        • Elm says:

          PS – One must not interpret George’s analysis or depiction of an economic terrain, for his sanction or approval. In other words, one must not obfuscate his meaning which must be held up & measured against the basic principles of wages, labor, rent & a production of wealth George brings forth in Progress & Poverty.

  10. socred says:

    This essay is a joke!

    The author obviously knows nothing about Social Credit, but I guess this is what passes for “scholarship” on the internet.

    The following was written by C.H. Douglas about those who sought to eliminate interest on loans:

    “The rapturous iconoclasm of certain groups of monetary reformers’, to whom Usury”, the sparring-partner of the bankers “inflation” is the Scarlet Woman of Babylon, has had the inevitable effect of encouraging the financial authorities to abolish, for practical purposes, the interest paid on undrawn current balances, and deposit accounts. We do not say they would not have done it anyway – the one thoroughly sound feature of the banking system was its dividends to shareholders and its interest payments to depositors which I jointly with the insignificant mint issues, provided almost the only fresh unattached purchasing-power. It is obviously lost time to beg of our amateur currency experts to consider whether they really mean what they ask, which is, the replacement of unattached purchasing-power by loans. But they must not complain if we, and others with us, regard them as propagandists for totalitarianism. ”
    The Social Creditor, Oct. 27, 1945.

    Douglas’s analysis was based upon his A+B theorem and his discovery of an accounting flaw related to the displacement of labour by machines, technique and process. His theory had absolutely nothing to do with interest on bank loans.

    A pathetic attempt at a strawman by the author.

    • OzzieThinker says:

      I think even this comment does not add too much. In reality governments have absolutely capituated with the banking profiteers, providing legislation that both enables and protects to the overall detriment of their electorates. That’s it. Full stop. It’s the bloody government that fails its duty to provide a fair and decent society. The profiteers have manipulated the goodwill by ensuring only and always “their people” are the legislative decision makers. Manipulation leads to counter-manipulation and ill will throughout all levels of the “social order” (sic).

      The only way to break this “vicious circle” is for all out revolution. The sheeple are too stoopid or too cowardly. So it will be “business as usual” ad infinitum. Have a nice day.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      My word “interest” should be replaced with “usury” – thanks for the back-handed clarification. If you had read the essay rather than looking for the one word that doesn’t align with the gospel of your chosen messiah, you would have seen the point is that “social credit” and similar systems contain certain positive notions, but miss the mark completely on political issues like protectionism.

      • socred says:

        Hi Deadeye:

        It doesn’t matter if you use the word interest or usury, Douglas was not opposed to the charging of interest on loans.

        You wrote in your essay:

        “The one-time popularity of social credit can be attributed to its focus on interest as the bane of mankind, ”

        This is simply untrue. Social Credit does not focus on interest as the “bane of mankind”. Have you actually read anything written by Douglas? Social Credit monetary policies are based upon Douglas’ A+B theorem and the demonstration of an accounting flaw wihch causes prices to increase faster than incomes. At it’s root is the displacement of labour in production as machines, process and techniques makes labour less of an input per unit output (i.e. as we become more efficient). It has absolutely nothing to do with charging interest on loans.

        This attack on usury in the name of “Social Credit” is made by those who do not truly understand the subject. But I would expect that someone writing an essay on the subject would actually go to the source (i.e Douglas himself), not those who are supposedly representing the source. If I call myself a zebra, does that make me a zebra? What you have written is a strawman.

        Further, Douglas did not advocate prodtectionism. What he did speak against was the necessity to promote a “favorable balance of trade”, where all countries were trying to export more than they imported. He claimed that this pursuit was due to the accounting flaw exposed in his A+B theorem, and he further claimed the obvious impossibility of all countries pursuing this policy at the same time. This leads to a trade war and ultimately real war. Social Credters do not advocate protectionism, but a balancing of the current account.

        Also, while Orange started as a guild socialist, he later abandoned that position when he started to follow Douglas who was completely opposed to Fabian Socialism – read the first chapter of “Credit Power and Democracy”.

        Also, I’d like to know where you can reference anything that states that Douglas was a follower of gnosticism. In fact, from a theological point of view, he tended to favour Catholocism from anything that I’ve read in this regard.

        Sorry, but if you’re going to post shoddy scholarship, you can expect it to be exposed.

        • deadeyeblog says:

          1. Yes, I read numerous articles by Douglas and tried to understand what he was advocating. My caricature of “social credit” is probably less fair of his work than of how others used it. He started writing in the 19-teens, and the ideas were taken up by fascist Germans and Italians, where they probably took a more anti-usury bent than Douglas did. Look at Gottfried Feder or Ezra Pound for example.

          2. Douglas is a windbag. You can read 100 articles by him and come up with 1 concrete idea. This is not true of “American System” economists like Carey, whose writings are clear, practical, and easy to debate.

          3. The A+B idea is basically that, because of technological efficiency, prices outstrip wages, and we go into debt to keep up. Therefore we need to print more money to allow laborers to consume their product.
          – That leaves a lot of information a priori. In a protected economy, wages (A) and prices are higher than in a free trade economy, and the debt burden (part of B) is reduced. Rather than handing out money and permitting wild capitalism, he could solve the same problem by reducing debt (through national banking), increasing wages (through minimum wage laws) and supporting/subsidizing prices (ie through Parity laws (I’ve got another article here on that, which was a big part of the new deal). Then B>A, plus you get full employment. Why did he take the circuitous route and advocate against full employment and full production? I don’t understand how Douglas came to all his assumptions, but they are neither self-evident nor historically true.
          – For another thing, higher wages do not necessarily create higher prices. Something like the new deal was slightly inflationary – technological efficiency lowered the overhead costs of farming and manufacturing while wages and dividends increased. This was made possible not by some mathematical principle, but by protectionist laws and policies.

          You’re obviously the Douglas expert here. My point is – Douglas is placing the blame on progress and efficiency, and focusing on these technical issues as some means of remediation, rather than looking at prerequisite political issues like trade policy, wage & price laws, etc. His assumptions don’t make any sense, therefore the details are not worth my time. Garbage in, garbage out.

    • this is a really odd quote Socred. This is what Douglas gave as causing the gap:
      “Categorically, there are at least the following five causes of a deficiency of purchasing power as compared with collective prices of goods for sale: –
      1. Money profits collected from the public (interest is profit on an intangible)
      2. Savings, i.e., mere abstentation from buying
      3. Investment of savings in new works, which create a new cost without fresh purchasing power
      4. Difference in circuit velocity between cost liquidation and price creation which results in charges being carried over into prices from a previous cost accountancy cycle. Practically all plant charges are of this nature, and all payments for material brought in frm a previous wage cycle are of the same nature.
      5. Deflation, i.e. sale of securities by banks and recall of loans” (C.H. Douglas, “The New and The Old Economics”)

      In your quote he goes on to say that savings are all of the sudden new purchasing power? And that banks paying interest for these savings are important?

      The quote is of late 1945. Perhaps Douglas was already suffering from the Guilt by Association: the Nazi’s were the most forceful anti usury activists of them all. Their destruction made interest a taboo for at least 50 years.

      • deadeyeblog says:

        Additionally – these 5 causes (1932) do not mention disemployment due to technology.

        Early Douglas sounds reasonable if incomplete, though I disagree with his solution. Later Douglas sounds like an economist for the British East India Company.

        There’s probably an interesting historical case study here, but I’d sooner put that aside and stick with the fundamentals:

        1. What are the causes for lack of purchasing power?
        2. Is erosion of purchasing power a natural process due to technology or some accounting problem (like the points in your 1932 quote)?
        3. What are the other macroeconomic factors at play (ie trade, regulations, productivity, the cost of money, etc.)?
        4. Does consumption create production, or the other way around?
        5. Can this problem be solved by putting money in the hands of “the people,” or will this simply cause inflation without increasing production? (A hard question to answer definitely, but one can suggest examples)

        I think if we worked through these questions, we’d probably agree that a theoretically benevolent state, because of the ability to undertake big projects and make decisions based on need rather than self-interest, would create more employment, higher living standards and better technology than would an economy based only on consumers acting in their own self-interest (ie shopping at Wal-Mart).

        The final question will become whether a benevolent state is possible, and just how benevolent it has to be (ie, how much waste, fraud and abuse can be tolerated) for a top-down economy to be preferable to a “bottom-up” economy.

        • socred says:

          If you read “The New and the Old Economics” he relates that there are also other likely causes, but in terms of disemployment due to technology, it is closely connected with reason 4.

          1) There are several “causes” for the lack of purchasng power. The “causes” are less important than the fact that it exists, but the primary cause isthe difference in circuit velocity between cost liquidation and price creation which results in charges being carried over into prices from a previous cost accountancy cycle. Practically all plant charges are of this nature, and all payments for material brought in frm a previous wage cycle are of the same nature.

          2) The accounting problem is closely related to the displacement of labour by technology. This causes B payments to grow in relation ot A payments (ie. overhead charges to increase relative to income). This process was stated in his first article “The Delusion of Super Production”

          “The factory cost—not the selling price—of any article under our present industrial and financial system is made up of three main divisions-direct labor cost, material cost and overhead charges, the ratio of which varies widely, with the “modernity” of the method of production. For instance, a sculptor producing a work of art with the aid of simple tools and a block of marble has next to no overhead charges, but a very low rate of production, while a modern screw-making plant using automatic machines may have very high overhead charges and very low direct labour cost, or high rates of production. Since increased industrial output per individual depends mainly on tools and method, it may almost be stated as a law that intensified production means a progressively higher ratio of overhead charges to direct labour cost, and, apart from artificial reasons, this is simply an indication of the extent to which machinery replaces manual labour, as it should.”

          3) What are the other macro-economic factors at play? Could you be more specific? It’s impossible to answer that general of question.

          4) Most definetly Douglas would argue that production creates consumption under our current financial system, but that consumpstion SHOULD create production, and part of the Social Credit initiative in terms of policy is to put the consumer in control of production. Hence, the reason why the consumer’s purchasing power is increasesd directly.

          5) If there is a deficiency in purchasing power, increasing purchasing power will not create inflation. Economists are confused as to the cause of inflation, and the quantity theory of money is a myth.

          I think if you actually read anything that Douglas wrote, you might easily see that these “problems” as you describe them have already been worked out.

      • prussia says:

        Hi Anthony:

        Why do you think the quote is “odd”? It is quite consistent with Douglas’s theories.

        Are you claiming that deposits have anything to do with savings?

        Douglas listed 5 causes of the gap between income and prices, with
        number 4 that you list above being the most important.

        While Douglas recognized that profits are at least a partial cause of the gap between income and prices, he never advocated eliminating profits – including bank profits.

        Sorry, but the quote has nothing to do with any feelings of “guilt by association”, but has to do with what he thought of those monetary reformers who obsessed over interest on loans.

  11. socred says:

    Correction, I wrote “Orange”, but meant to type “Orage”, the editor of the “New Age”

  12. Gregory Fegel says:

    When I was an adolescent in the 1960s, I often read articles which predicted that ever-increasing technology, or automation, would eliminate jobs, creating a leisure class. The rosy tone of the articles did not fool me: I knew that, in reality, the “leisure class” would be the unemployed and uncompensated. The predictions of job loss through automation are now coming true, not with the optimistic result that the articles predicted, but with the pessimistic result that I had predicted.

    CH Douglas had an optimistic view of the job-reduction that results from automation, as did his contemporary, John Maynard Keynes. “As technological progress made possible an increase in the output of goods per hour worked, people would have to work less and less to satisfy their needs, until in the end they would have to work hardly at all. Then, Keynes wrote, “for the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem—how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.” He thought this condition might be reached in about 100 years—that is, by 2030.” — “In Praise of the Leisure Class” in The Chronicle Review, June 18, 2012.

    In India, small farmers are being squeezed out by technologically-advanced and mechanically-efficient monoculture super-farms, and the suicide rate among the small famers has been more than 17,000 per year for the past couple of decades. That’s one result of mechanization and technological “progress” destroying the livelihood of the independent small-scale worker.

    So far I have yet to read or hear from any modern economist who recognizes what to me is obvious — that mechanization, automation, and technology (including computer technology) are net eliminators of jobs, and that, as long as technology continues to advance, more and more jobs will be eliminated. I hear a lot of talk about “what it will take to bring the jobs back,” but I think that one might as well discuss turning back the clock, and bringing back the horse and buggy. I think that the only way to restore jobs that have been eliminated by technology, or automation, is to reduce the hours of the standard work-week to employ everyone who wants to work, or to create busy-work jobs for the unemployed. Or just pay people to be people.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Keep in mind that a jobless American is offset by an overworked Salvadorean, Chinese or Bangladeshi.

      In the post-ww2 era, America did manage to achieve high productivity, employment and “leisure.” No more kids in mines or factories, and the forced inefficiency of labor laws (like the 8-hr workday) allowed people to earn a living in a reasonable amount of time. Technology has certainly eliminated many jobs, but created new jobs in designing, operating and marketing technology. What would you rather have – a slave gang breaking rocks to clear a road, or huge construction equipment?

      To take your farm example – there’s a middle ground between primitive farming (like using an ox as a tractor) and super-farming. Probably whatever the scale a single family with seasonal help can handle with modest technology like a small tractor, fencing, buildings, greenhouses, etc. A good policy (in this case parity price) will force inefficiency by offering a fair production price based on a desirable scale of production.

      As a society (through our elected representatives) we have the ability to say “super-farms are unacceptable because of their impact on the environment and the economy. We’re going to make the farms we want POSSIBLE through price subsidy, and let the market work out the details.” To take a converse example, the market is not providing BIG enough solutions like a national system of contaminant-free UV-filtered water or bullet trains. We’re going to make those things possible through creating the organization and the credit, and let “the market” work out the details. It’s a political approach with simple technical methods.

      You can’t accept free trade, free markets and runaway technology or corporate power as given. Those are political decisions that we have the RIGHT to make. When people argue about whether healthcare is a right, I’d say “who cares – it’s a necessity, and we have the RIGHT to provide it.”

      Good policy has the ability to create an environment for full employment, reasonable labor and decent living standards. But sometimes you need policy to stand in the way of technology (like GMO) or corporate greed (free trade, union-busting, etc.). If we want jobs, why not start with bringing back manufacturing through tariffs and subsidy, busting monopolies and creating new markets and technologies? Human potential is nearly unlimited, but you need fair rules to bring everyone along.

      • Gregory Fegel says:

        Deadeye: The “outsourcing” of labor to other countries does not remediate the situation of technology eliminating jobs. The Developed nations have outsourced many millions of Information Technology jobs to Asia. In India, the outsourced IT jobs have created a Class-selective boom in the economy, which has benefitted the Indian middle and upper classes, but not the Indian lower classs, whose wages are stagnant, and whose unemployment rates are rising steadily, in spite of the IT boom the Indian upper classes are enjoying. Nowadays, many poor Indians own a cell phone, but that does not give the poor Indians a good job that pays a living wage. On a global scale, the IT and communications industry simply can’t provide enough jobs to employ enough Indians to prevent the Indian enconomy from endemic poverty and mass starvation. That’s because technology is a net eliminator of jobs; in fact, the purpose of technology is to eliminate labor. India continues to have the highest per-capita starvation rate in the world, with 50% of its population malnourished.

        Deadeye, you wrote: “Technology has certainly eliminated many jobs, but created new jobs in designing, operating and marketing technology. What would you rather have – a slave gang breaking rocks to clear a road, or huge construction equipment?”

        On balance, advancing technology does not create more new jobs than the number of old jobs that it eliminates. If technology created more work than it eliminated, it would not be considered an advancement. Agriculture employed 85% of US workers during the 19th Century, about 5% in the mid-20th Century, and less than 2% today. The mechanization of agriculture created some new jobs in the marketing and maintaining of farm equipment, but the overall result was the elimination of most agricultural jobs. Even the small-scale family farmers played a part in the mechanization of US agriculture, and the resultant elimination of US agriculture jobs. The mechanization of agriculture has produced abundant food, but it has aso created an underclass of underemployed workers wo can barely afford to buy that food. So we give them Food Stamps. If you eliminate the worker’s rock-breaking job with huge construction equipment, have you got an alternative way for them to earn (or receive) a living wage?

        I agree with your views about the need for government intervention in the economy. However, I think that, due to technology’s elimination of jobs, full employment is impossible, whether through governmental market manipulation, or through a lessaiz faire economy.

        In India during the past 5 years, bumper crops of wheat and rice have been stockpiled in the open in huge piles, due to a shortage of storage facilities. Meanwhile, starvation remains endemic in many parts of the country. One irony is that the grain crops were subsidized by the Indian government, and the Indian government has failed to distribute those subsidized grains to the starving masses. A government effort to transport the surplus grain to local distribution centers was not undertaken, although it could have been. One thing I see in this tragedy is a profound disrespect for the unemployed: punishing the “useless eaters” by starving them.

        I propose that a nation that believes in “human rights” should define the “right to work” as a basic human need. The standard work-week should be continually adjusted to provide full employment to all of the citizens. If unemployment is 20%, the work-week should be reduced from 40 hours to 32 hours. No one should be permitted to work “overtime”, if someone else wants the work.

        • Gregory Fegel says:

          Two clarifications to my above comment. In my fourth paragraph, I meant that neither juggling the economy, nor “free market forces” could provide full employment. Full employment is only possible if the “right to work” is mandated by law.

          In my closing pragraph, I meant that no one should be allowed to work overtime if other qalified workers who are “underemployed” want to work those hours.

  13. socred says:

    Hi Deadeye:

    Thanks for the response.

    I did want to address a few issues.

    1) I think it’s inappropriate to caricature someone’s work based upon how “some” others have used it. It’s not proper scholarship, and it really doesn’t promote your case against Social Credit. Social Credit really stands or fails based upon what Douglas said it was (since he invented it), not what others have misinterpreted it as.

    2) Calling Douglas a “windbag” is merely ad-hominiem and is another logical fallacy in addition to the strawman fallacy which I address above. Douglas had the keen insight of an engineer, and he understood accrual accounting and how it relates to income, prices and money quite well. He had numerous insights, not just the A+B theorem, and had many valid criticisms of classical economics.

    3) Wages and prices are higher in any industiralized economy, but the gap between prices and wages increases as a nation industrializes because overhead costs always increase relative to wages as labour becomes a decreasing factor in production. Increasing wages will not alleviate this gap, and an increase in wages has to increase prices because wages form a part of costs, and all costs have to go into prices. This is basic cost accounting. If a company cannot recover their costs, then they go out of business. Unfortunately, most economists have a very poor understanding of accrual accounting and how it effects prices. The only way to allieviate this gap is to give consumers a form of purchasing power that is not costed in production, and hence form a part of prices. This is exactly what Douglas’ proposals for a dividend and price rebate do.

    4) in another post you state that good policy has to create an environment for full employment. As a Social Crediter I would argue that this policy is “insane” in the truest sense of the word. Science and technology are decreasing the necessity for labour for every unit output, so enforcing a policy of full employment means the only course of action in terms of policy is increased output. This is why economic growth is essential to our modern economy given this policy and our current financial system, and why environmental degradation is such a concern. The only sane policy is to allow people to choose to consume leisure as science and technology displace them from production. The culmination of this insane practice of full employment is war, which provides plenty of work for everyone, and which is in the literal sense “the production of destruction”.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Here’s a reply to socred’s comment and Gregory’s, above. Socred, I don’t really care to debate the person of Douglas. Let’s assume he was a really great guy, and dismiss any departures from his basic concept (though this is kind of like dismissing Milton Friedman as not being “Austrian” enough).

      I think you both basically agree that technology destroys labor. Socred (Douglas) says we can and should forget about employment, and simply turn the surplus of production into a dividend that people will use to “consume leisure”. Gregory offers more “Soviet” methods (sorry, can’t think of a better adjective) like reducing the work week so more people can share part-time jobs.

      There are a few factors in play here:

      1. What is “full employment”? I wouldn’t take it to mean every person has a job, but that every person who needs one has one. With all due respect to women and seniors, there are too many working mothers and grandmothers, especially in the service sector.

      2. Is technology really a net job destroyer? The idea sounds self-evident, but when you invent a tractor, how many farm jobs are destroyed and how many tractor jobs are created? More importantly, how many bushels of wheat are created per job? (rather than per hour – 8 hours as a tractor mechanic is probably much more “productive” in real terms than 12 hours toiling in the field)

      3. What role does a nation’s economic system and/or trade play in the data available on these issues? CH Douglas’ data says that all businesses operate at a loss that grows over time (or that the cost of goods sold is greater than the wages and dividends paid). Why is this? Probably because his Bank of England, like the Federal Reserve, pushed the economy toward speculation and usury. There is a real economic surplus, but instead of being reinvested in labor, a lot of “heat loss” gets soaked up by gamblers, who also have first dibs on any new credit offered by the central bank.

      Let’s step out of the realm of theory. The US has ~$2.6 T in imports (much of which is oil), and most of the $2.1 T exports are destructive to our economy and those of our “trading partners” – ie cheap grain, financial services, military hardware, intellectual property.

      What has the US lost? Innumerable farm jobs, huge parts of steel and related industries, aircraft, auto, building materials, textiles, consumer goods, etc. What have we gained? Instagram. To take one sector, we’ve lost over 4/5 of our steel workers (from 500,000 in 1980 to 88,000 today), despite a higher demand for steel here and abroad. Is this the fault of technology? NO – those jobs are now in India (ArcelorMittal is operated in the 3rd world and run by a Euro hedge fund), China South Korea and Japan.

      Now apply that same trend to shoes, washing machines, plate glass windows, ceramics, and basically anything you can find in any store other than food.

      All the jobs we (speaking as an American) need already exist – just in cheap labor countries. All we need is to protect our borders from the economic war waged against us against by own corporations. Yes, certain industries have been destroyed by technology (I come from a long line of men in the printing industry), but there are whole industries that don’t yet exist and need skilled labor – how about an international program for seawater desalination? That destroys nothing and creates scores of industrial jobs, infrastructure and tangible wealth for people who need water. How about environmental remediation and upcycling, new energy sources (which only destroy the bank cartel that owns the oil industry), transportation infrastructure, better building materials, ad infinitum? Sign me up!

      Let’s say a national economy is a wood-burning stove. Production (A) is the wood, and Consumption (B) is the fire. Douglas seems to say that as you pile in more wood, it simply can’t be consumed fast enough, and eventually chokes out the fire. His solution is to leave the door open (consumer credit) so the wood is consumed faster.

      What I’m saying is that free trade is like trying to burn wet wood – opening the door will help, but you’re going to get a bunch of smoke and never burn as hot as you need to. Keep the wood in a dry shed (protectionism), start with the door open a bit (subsidy, price support, consumer credit), get the fire hot (economic growth), then close the door and baffle and let it stay white hot (a mature, industrial economy).

      Technology does create disruptions that need to be dealt with, but with the prerequisite economic system, it’s also the best solution to most of those problems.

      • Gregory Fegel says:

        My thought is that improving the economic efficiency of a given nation, or its balance of trade, may help temporarily, but the elimination of jobs by technology is an ongoing process that will continue, regardless of what economic efficiencies a nation undertakes. The steel production that was outsourced to India is employing only a tiny fraction of Indian workers, and it isn’t doing much to help the endemic poverty and starvation in India.

        In the US city where I live, lots of college graduates are working as barristas, or waiting tables; there simply isn’t any work available in the fields they trained in. Many are chronically unemployed, or underemployed. I think that this is the shape of things to come.

  14. socred says:

    Hi Deadeye:

    Thanks again for the response.

    You say you don’t want to debate Douglas, but you are the one who wrote an essay which is neagative towards Social Credit, yet the concepts you discuss really have nothing to do with Social Credit. That was my issue with your essay. It’s a strawman.

    Leaving that aside, I will talk about your most recent comment.

    You said that full employment is not that everyone has a job but that everyone who needs a job has one. My question is: do they need a job, or do they need purchasing power? These are not the same thing, yet they are mixed up in people’s mind because the present system only distributes purchasing power if someone has a job.

    Of course technology increases the productivity of labour. Just taking your example of farm production – I can guarantee you since the advent of the industrial revolution and automated farming that there are less workers needed to produce farm equipment than there were working the land without automated equipment. Even those producing this equipment are being displaced by robots. If you have a policy where the only means to income is through employment, then the only policy that governments can pursue if full employment, and as a consequence the only policy that can be pursued is increased output, or economic growth.

    You also have the benefits of trade mixed up in your mind because you believe the purpose of an economy is to provide employment as opposed to the delivery of goods and services. . If a country exports more than they import, then they are literally giving away more goods and services than they receive in return. How can this policy be “beneficial”? It is only beneficial if you believe the purpose of an economic system is to create work. Further, it is physically impossible for all countries to pursue this policy at the same time, because in order for a country to export more than it imports, some country must import more than they export. This policy leads to trade wars, and can ultimately lead to real wars. The necessity to create a “favourable balance of trade” is a direct result of the accounting flaw that Douglas discovered in his A+B theorem. The only sane way to make the system work is to allow people a form of income which is not derived from work as capital and technology replace labour in production.

    I would like to also add that war should be counted as an “export” in the current account of a balance of trade, because warring countries literally “dump” their exports for free in the form of bombs and bullets on the “importing” country.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      You’re misrepresenting my position – mostly because I don’t believe any economy (especially the US’) need be export-oriented (rather toward internal production and consumption), nor do I disagree that the point of the economy is to produce and distribute needed goods and services. But as I stated in the essay, I think it’s naive to view “production” as some automatic process where everyone gets to share in the wealth and nobody has to do the work. Sure, in a sense the point is purchasing power rather than employment – but if I’m the guy working the 3rd shift at the power plant and you’re the guy receiving monthly “purchasing power” checks, I’m not going to be too inclined to stay at my desk.

      Sorry, I’d like to reply further but have some pressing work concerns of my own 😉

      • OzzieThinker says:

        The problem is that commerce has only delivered infrastructure and services to support its needs. The needs of the people arbitrary limiting protest or physical rebelion. Your arguments all inspect a “monopoly board” where trite suggestions like :reducing the working week to solve poverty” hold. Increasing hourly rates would fail and the number of hours worked are only relevant to a profit’s worshiping monopoly.

        When “Moses” [if he existed at all] invented a false, non-existent invisible God that could never be questioned and claimed “thou shalt not steal” was a divine command, he protected the “assets” of those who never owned anything to begin with – those who STOLE from God. That fiendish deception has resulted in monopoly board politics involving the protection of the asset holder’s loot to the disadgantage of all – other than those it superficial supports by intent or design.

        No wonder hardcore Judaism supports Capitist-Communism and ATHEISM!!!!

  15. socred says:


    Where did Douglas state that nobody has to do any work?

    Again, this is a strawman. What Douglas stated is that as technology replaces labour in production the dividend should SLOWLY replace the wage as a source of income. Everyone gets a dividend, and those who work receive a dividend and a wage or salary.

    The problem is that total prices increase faster than total incomes – both of which are flows. This is a result of displacement of labour in producton. The only cure is to increase people’s purchasing power with new credits that are not costed in production.

    The ideal limit is where machines did all the work, and nobody would have to work, but this is an ideal limit. We are not there, but science and technology are moving us towards that ideal, and as they do, it’s necessary to supplement people’s income with another form of purchasing power.

    • Gregory Fegel says:

      Socred: Some people’s mantra is “capitalists create jobs,” but the problem is, capitalists don’t create enough jobs, and they will create less and less jobs as technology progresses. It is the goal of capitalists to make products and aquire profits, and for the capitalists, workers are a business expense that needs to be minimized in order to increase profits. Technological advances help to reduce the number of workers, so capitalists seek the new labor-saving technologies. For the capitalists, technology pays, and technology also sells.

      In modern society, all real estate and natural resources are “owned” by someone, and all workers must find their livelihoods within the jurisdictions of society, because there is no longer any wilderness where a worker can earn his living from “scratch.” In spite of this fact, many of those who say that “capitalists create jobs” also say that “workers are fully responsible for finding or creating their own jobs.” The truth is that in modern society, the capitalists, by controlling the real estate and the natural resources, have eliminated the opportunity for workers to create their own jobs, except as craftsmen, or independent consultants.

      What we have now, and what we will increasingly have in the future, is a situation where there is not, and never will be, enough jobs to provide full-time employment for all workers, unless we reduce the hours of what we consider full-time work. However, because so many people believe in the myth that “anyone can find a job, or create their own job, if they want to,” society will tolerate having an imbalanced mix of fully employed, underemployed, and chronically (or permanently) unemployed workers.

      The Douglas “dividend” already exists as the “dole” in England, where surplus workers are called “redundant” — which is a surprisingly accurate term, in this age of politically-correct euphemisms. Meanwhile, the governments supply plenty of “corporate welfare” and “corporate bailouts” to help the rich get richer. Since all of the big corporations are “on the dole,” no unemployed worker should feel ashamed to be “on the dole.” The unemployed workers simply failed to get winning numbers in the competition for too few jobs for too many people. There is the 1% and the 99%, but there is also the 70% who have jobs, and the 30% who don’t. Before long, it will be the 30% who have jobs, and the 70% who don’t — and the jobs will never come back, because technology has eliminated them. The unemployed young people at the Occupy rallies should be asking the Union workers who join their protests, “If we take over the country, will you share your job with me?”

      No doubt the elitist Oligarchs who rule the nations understand this, and it explains why they may have an “Agenda 21” to reduce the world’s population by 80%. There is a growing surplus of “useless eaters” for whom there are no jobs, and since the “useless eaters” will not be workers or producers, they will also not be active consumers. They are simply in the way of the anachronistic Juggernaut of the for-profit economy.

      If we want to see all human beings respected in our society, we must change the way our economy and our government work, from our current profit-based system, to a people-based system.

  16. socred says:

    Hi Gregory:

    The “dole” in England is not equivalent to Douglas’ proposal for a dividend.

    The dole in England is financed through taxation. The Douglas dividend is financed through the creation of new credit. The dole is REdistributive, the dividend is distributive.

    To understand the necessity for this creation, one must first understand Douglas’ A+B theorem and the accounting flaw which comes from labour being displaced in production.

    Unfortunately, economists do not have a clear understanding of accrual accounting and how it influences prices. Many o ftheir theories describe a fantasy land, not reality. Douglas was an engineer and a cost accountant. He took an observation and extrapolated it into his A+B theorem.

    People don’t necessarily need “jobs”, what they need is income. While some jobs are still necessary, a decreasing proportion of them will be. That is what technology is doing to production. The socialist cries for more jobs should be replaced with the cry for more purchasing power. The current financial system is not “self-liquidating” because prices increase faster than incomes. Increasing incomes will not solve this dilemma, because overhead charges are always increasing in relation to income as labour is displaced from production. The only true arithmetically correct way to solve this problem is to increase people’s purchasing power in such a way that said purchasing power is not costed in production (i.e. is NOT a wage,).

  17. Hi Deadeye,

    Sorry I wasn’t around when this interesting discussion was going on. Was busy with some other stuff at the time, but I read your article, which certainly is a very effective one in terms of driving your position home!

    But I want to react to what you had to say to my SC piece on Henry’s yesterday:
    “It presumes, as does the Austrian school, that “the state” can
    do nothing right, so proposes to put purchasing power directly into the hands of Joe six-pack.”

    Well, I indeed don’t trust the State. Why do you? After all: would you really be happy to give the Fed Govt a debt free (or, more importantly, interest free) unit?

    Do you really think it will build high speed trains?

    I’m worried it’ll just continue what it does best: rape, maim, plunder, murder, lie, invade and destroy. Mostly abroad, but more and more at home too.

    Also, I’m not too happy with people like Lincoln and Roosevelt: they did centralize power in state hands, at the cost of the people and state rights. Worse: Roosevelt did not end the depression. He needed to get his country into the war, against the express wishes of most americans to get the economy going again. Roosevelt without a doubt was a highly criminal, deeply disturbed warmonger. None of his policies were effective or just. In no way was he any better than Adolf Hitler (whom I despise also, don’t worry).

    I understand of course that there must be infrastructure etc. I’m most definitely not against Government perse. I don’t believe at all in anarchy or anarcho capitalism. But government is a limitedly useful tool, when run correctly. It is simply a fact of history that Government, wherever, whenever was in the hands of monied elites.

    Also I’m not too happy with your scathing Joe Sixpack. Most certainly many people, especially the ‘lower’ half of the population are rather dimwitted and often morally corrupted (although not as bad as the psychopaths that gyrate to powercenters like Government). But they are people. They need care. Guidance by people who are willing to serve them, instead of dominate them. These people have full human rights. These human rights are not perse served best by using them as wage slaves in megalomaniacal and often superfluous government projects.

    Government is not a human and as such has no rights whatsoever.

    So in short: Joe Sixpack will buy some beers. Government will buy an even bigger army.
    That’s why I’d rather see SC than a Greenback.

  18. Thom Allen says:

    So, Lincoln was right to sacrifice 600,000 lives to impose his protective tariff on the South.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      So, Southerner oligarchs were right to sacrifice 600,000 lives to steal half of the US in defense of British banks?

      How would you feel about this scenario: The US takes measures to restrict illegal immigration, invests money in small farms and lends Mexico money for development.

      Then California’s governor secedes from the US, sells off its public infrastructure to Israeli investors for pennies on the dollar, funds drug cartels in Mexico to fight development efforts, and claims the right to be the world’s low-cost agricultural producer based on cheap immigrant labor. And on top of that, it funds western secessionist movements and militias, and conducts armed expeditions to take over local governments and expand its territory eastward.

      If you lived in Oregon or Nevada, would you support California’s “state’s right” for self-determination, or would you pick up a gun?

      • Gregory Fegel says:

        One pathetic memory of the Civil War is the thousands of barefoot Southern troops who offered themselves up for slaughter to protect “Southern rights,” which mainly benefitted only the rich Southerners. Southerners who owned twenty slaves were exempt from the Confederate military draft, and many others bought their way out of conscription.

        The chorus of the famous Confederate anthem said “Hurrah, hurrah, for Southern Rights, hurrah!”
        Instead, it should have said “Ha-ha, ha-ha, for Southern Rights, ha-ha!”

        • Gregory Fegel says:

          Today, of course, we have US military and NATO troops who serve the agenda of the wealthy elitists who rule the Western Corporate Empire in its bogus War on Terrorism, which is actually a US/NATO/Israeli war of aggression for global domination through control of the resources, territory, and populations of the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia.

          Today’s US military veterans get college grants and medical benefits that the Confederate troops never got — which makes the US troops more like mercenaries, and less like serfs. Currently there are more mercenaries than regular troops serving the US Empire in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the mercenary ranks are full of US military veterans.

        • thom Allen says:

          If Lincoln had obeyed the Constitution and not invaded the South, there would have been no war. The Upper South did not secede until Lincoln made his decision to invade the Lower South obvious.

          • Gregory Fegel says:

            As should be obvious to anyone, the (often vaguely worded) US Constitution is frequently disregarded by the US government, which throughout US history has managed many “workarounds” to avoid obeying the Constitution.

            The US government’s foreign policy was always one of expansionism, as the US doctrine of Manifest Destiny, the Louisiana Purchase, the Indian Wars, the Cherokee Removal (1836-39), the War with Mexico (1846-48), the Oregon Boundary Dispute, the US invasion of Mormon Utah (1857-58), and many other events amply demonstrate.

            No way in Hell was the US government ever going to permit the secession of any of its member States — no matter what the Constitution says or doesn’t say.

          • deadeyeblog says:

            From the Constitution, Section 8:

            The Congress shall have power […] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
            suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

            From the Insurrection Act of 1807

            The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

            (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

            (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

            In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

            November 6, 1860: Lincoln elected
            December 20, 1860: South Carolina secedes
            February 1, 1861: Florida, MS, AL, GA, LA and Texas secede
            March 4, 1861: Lincoln inaugurated

            From Lincoln’s inaugural:

            “Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
            —First inaugural address, 4 March 1861

            So, Lincoln gave the South a simple and reasonable way to avoid war, did the only thing he could given the circumstances and acted well within the bounds of the US Constitution. The Civil war was entirely and unequivocally the fault of the confederacy, which was a British-sponsored insurrection.

  19. […] I recently did a blog post criticizing social credit (and similar doctrines) for some of the aspects for which Mr. Migchels praises it: […]

  20. Gregory Fegel says:

    Besides the issue of the Constitution, in the 1860s there were many Americans whose parents or grandparents had lived during the American Revolution and the War of 1812. Since then, the USA had been on a continual course of expansionism — the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Indian Wars, the Cherokee Removal (1830s), the Manifest Destiny doctrine, the Spanish Cession of Florida (1819), the Texas Independence struggle (1836), the US War with Mexico (1848), the Oregon Border Controversy 1846), the Westward immigration, and the US punitive expedition against the Mormons in Utah (1857-58). Bloody Kansas was fresh in people’s minds. Many people, not all of them Northerners, would not countenance the secession of Southern States — regardless of what the Constitution said or did not say about the matter.

    • Gregory Fegel says:

      By the previous comment I meant to convey that the patriotism of Southerners for their own States or for the Confederacy was matched by the patriotism of those who supported the Union. The desire to preserve the Union was expressed in many letters and editorials of the time; Robert E. Lee was a reluctant warrior who said that, although he opposed secession, he would not raise his sword against his fellow Southerners. Lee famously said, “There is no sacrifice I am not ready to make for the preservation of the Union, save that of Honour.”

      The North also had numerical superiority — the North had a population of 19 million, and the Confederacy had a population of 9 million, a third (3.5 million) of whom were slaves. Considering that, and also the industrial superiority of the North, the Southern secession was a badly-calculated act of hubris. The Confederacy’s Anglo-French allies proved unwilling to overreach themselves, with the Russian fleet anchored in New York and San Francisco.

      • deadeyeblog says:

        Good comments, Gregory. And once again, it comes down to economics. The confederacy was based on slave cotton exchanged for cheap British imports. The north wanted industry and high wages, which required tariffs, and you can’t have free trade and protectionism at the same time. If we suddenly had a movement for protectionism in this country, imagine all the excuses and justifications dreamed up by the Ron Pauls and Mitch McConnells of the world.

        Lincoln (and the status quo) was openly offering to permit slavery to stay where it was and fade away under the tide of rising living standards. The civil war was as much as anything a war of southern planters against the southern lower class. They didn’t want an emergent middle class competing with and agitating against slave labor, and were all too eager to throw their unwashed masses into a slaughterhouse to preserve their privileges.

        • Gregory Fegel says:

          The scenario of exploitation and manipulation exemplified by the Southern aristocracy continues today in the USA, with the US upper classes controlling the government, the school system, academia, the media, and the corporations, using those institutions to brainwash the lower classes into cooperating with their exploitative system. The false threat of Islamic jihad is a hoax perpetrated by the US government with false flag attacks, for the purpose of justifying the bogus War on Terrorism, which is actually a US/NATO/Israeli war of aggression for control of the resources, territory, populations, and markets of Africa and Asia.

          BTW, recently I’ve been reading Stratfor founder George Friedman’s “The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century” (2009). You can see a short video summary of the book at:

          While I don’t agree with Friedman’s personal political allegiences, I think that his geopolitical analysis is accurate, and his forecasts are worth considering. One thing that reading Friedman’s book has helped me to realize is that a defeat or failure of the USA in some of its wars of aggression is not likely to stop, or slow down, the US Imperial juggernaught. Nor is the USA likely to succumb to an economic collapse that will eliminate its status as the world’s leading superpower. Friedman is probably right when he says that what the neocons have labeled the “New American Century” will be just that.

  21. edward says:

    wow, i am joe sixpack, and i am impressed! chug-chug-chug!

  22. […] Let us begin with the claim that Social Credit was promoted by the Fabian Society, which, to be fair, originates from Deadeye’s blog. […]

  23. Hi there! I simply wish to give an enormous thumbs up for the great information you might have right here on this post.
    I will be coming again to your blog for extra soon.

  24. Howdy! I simply wish to give a huge thumbs up for the great
    information you may have here on this post. I will likely be coming back to
    your blog for extra soon.

  25. I do not comment, but I looked at a ton of remarks on Rouse Up,
    O Young Economists of the New Age! | deadeyeblog. I do have 2 questions for you if it’s allright. Is it just me or do some of the responses appear like they are left by brain dead individuals? 😛 And, if you are posting at additional social sites, I’d like to follow you.
    Would you make a list of every one of all your public
    pages like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?

  26. Good day! I just would like to give an enormous thumbs
    up for the nice information you may have here on this post.
    I can be coming again to your weblog for more soon.

  27. This is because most of wholesale dealer listed in this lists are genuine
    given that Sale – Hoo team are thoroughly investigating their member’s reputation in wholesale industry. If you think only women are fashion-conscious, you are very much mistaken. Contrary to popular belief, wholesale almonds and other bulk wholesale nuts will not keep forever.

  28. You could definitely see your expertise within the article you write.
    The world hopes for more passionate writers like you who are not
    afraid to say how they believe. All the time follow your heart.

  29. says:

    Great article! This is the kind of info that are meant to be shared across the
    web. Disgrace on Google for not positioning this submit higher!

    Come on over and talk over with my web site . Thank
    you =)

  30. Riapre foursome freckled four video porn forest

  31. I’m curious to find out what blog platform you have been working with?
    I’m experiencing some small security issues with my latest blog and I’d like to find
    something more safe. Do you have any suggestions?

  32. Lorrie says:

    Hi i am kavin, its my first time to commenting anyplace, when i read this paragraph i thought i could
    also create comment due to this brilliant post.

  33. Blondell says:

    I am really loving the theme/design of your site. Do you ever run into any browser compatibility problems?
    A couple of my blog readers have complained about my site not working correctly in Explorer but looks great in Firefox.
    Do you have any tips to help fix this problem?

  34. Hello, i think that i noticed you visited my website
    so i got here to return the desire?.I am attempting to find issues to improve
    my web site!I assume its good enough to use a few of your ideas!!

  35. You can certainly see your enthusiasm in the article you write.
    The world hopes for even more passionate writers
    such as you who are not afraid to mention how they believe.
    All the time follow your heart.

  36. I constantly spent my half an hour to read this blog’s posts every day
    along with a mug of coffee.

  37. Hi fantastic website! Does running a blog like this take
    a great deal of work? I have absolutely no expertise in computer programming but I had been hoping to start my own blog in the near future.
    Anyway, should you have any suggestions or techniques
    for new blog owners please share. I understand this is off
    subject however I simply needed to ask. Many thanks!

  38. Why users still use to read news papers when in this technological globe everything is presented on net?

  39. I just couldn’t depart your web site before suggesting that
    I really enjoyed the standard info a person provide for your visitors?

    Is going to be again frequently in order to investigate cross-check new posts

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: