The Church of Clientology
“[Neoliberalism] values market exchange as [quoting Paul Treanor] ‘an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide to all human action, and substituting for all previously held ethical beliefs,’ it emphasises the significance of contractual relations in the marketplace. It holds that the social good will be maximised by maximising the reach and frequency of market transactions, and it seeks to bring all human action into the domain of the market.”-David Harvey
Considering the above quote by David Harvey, the neo-conservative line about capitalism lifting more people globally out of abject poverty is exactly in line with this premise: by conflating the moral good of alleviating human suffering with material well-being—which, like all the most effective propaganda, contains a grain of truth—“conservatives” may justify the dismantling of the middle- and working-classes in moral terms of “the greater good,” while their counterparts on the Left use their own moral framework involving “privilege” and post-colonial theory and other Cultural Marxist constructions. These run social interference as often-incoherent noise, the only real uniting premise being that whites are bad, while the neo-liberal economic system is able to destroy ecosystems and entire nations and ethnic groups relatively unimpeded.
Neo-liberalism itself is able to flourish really for a multitude of reasons, but one of the primary ones is that it is able to masquerade as a moral system of belief when it is in reality driven by economics. Yes, the primary beneficiaries of this system—the Jews—despise us, but they would be utterly impotent without: 1) power and influence, stemming from their incredible financial resources, and 2) a willing pool of collaborators who place gain over kith and kin. For James Mason:
The White upper-classes…have long since been alienated from their own people…Today these people are merely managers and custodians, albeit damned well paid ones…All is liberalism; all is materialism. Jews are only a minority in this but they do manage to swim so very well in this open sewer they have helped to create. But the sick Whites are vying each to out-do the other in order to catch up and be the most “in” of the “in crowd.” We’re talking about a very large body of people who have sold out, or perhaps better put, have burnt out, with no vital signs left…It is not so much a conspiracy as it is a head being out of touch with its body yet striving to make certain that the body becomes as vile and perverse as the head, thus spelling doom for the entire organism…The Whites of this country and indeed most of the West have been betrayed by their own rotten leaders…That is why no renaissance can be possible here. Only revolution.
I disagree slightly with Mason here in that a Renaissance is possible, and, in fact, essential, however the point stands—only after a revolution against the System will such a Renaissance be possible. But what would this revolution look like?
Under NSDAP direction, employers were discouraged from hiring women, and the building of families was incentivized by the state with a set percentage of loan forgiveness with the birth of each new child, among other monetary benefits. Under the NSDAP, loans were issued for a set price. Marriage loans up to 1,000 marks were implemented and were repayable in interest-free installments. A quarter of the loan was forgiven at the birth of each child. Unless it could not be produced domestically, imports were banned, with the express goal of making the German economy self-sufficient. This was highly problematic for the neo-liberal establishment, for the dumping of cheap goods into domestic markets is central to their project, which helps create displaced and unemployed workers (think of the effects of NAFTA on both Mexican and American farmers), and the inter-connected payment system of war reparations was key in keeping Germany weak and subservient.
Free trade is essential for wage suppression and out-sourcing, and for the erasure of national boundaries to facilitate the movement of people and goods. With the new German economy forming the center of a central European trading bloc largely independent of the globalist system, foreign capital and—this is key—foreign banking predicated on the centrality of interest. Adolf Hitler was heavily influenced by the writings of Gottfried Feder, who conceived of an economy free from interest, with labor as the most valuable “commodity,” for only labor, not capital, is productive. Capital is a conduit, a medium by which we exchange goods and services, but is not in and of itself anything beyond the value we place upon it. Feder understood this, and deplored the idea of compound interest. As Feder wrote:
The idea of interest on loans is the diabolical invention of big loan-capital; it alone makes possible the lazy drone's life of a minority of tycoons at the expense of the productive peoples and their work-potential; it has led to profound, irreconcilable differences, to class-hatred, from which war among citizens and brothers was born. The only cure, the radical means to heal suffering humanity is the abolition of enslavement to interest on money.
By the mid-1935, Germany had the strongest economy in Europe. For Sheldon Emery:
Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 and on, accounting for its startling rise from the depression to a world power in 5 years. Germany financed its entire government and war operation from 1935 to 1945 without gold and without debt, and it took the whole Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German power over Europe and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers. Such history of money does not even appear in the textbooks of public (government) schools today.
Among many other projects, including the construction of the Autobahn system, teams of formerly unemployed men in NSDAP Germany were tasked with the planting of new forests. In the United States, very little positive came from the Franklin Delano Roosevelt presidency, however his Works Progress Administration and other similar programs gave millions of unemployed men in America work, and the resultant successes include the engineering miracle that is the Hoover Dam. These programs gave men purpose while also improving their surroundings, their environment, and their nations. The essence of the National Socialist project was that the cultural, biological, physical, and natural ecosystems of a nation define that nation and are all inextricably intertwined, and that without active cultivation—to say nothing of stopping the exploitation and degradation brought about by the developing neo-liberal system—the death of the living organism that is the nation is guaranteed.
As a counter-point to the system implemented by the NSDAP, one might turn to that practiced concurrently by an ethnically-similar group in close geographic proximity—about as close to a controlled experiment as we could hope for in such an instance—in the form of Austrian Economics, that favored by think-tank libertarians everywhere. The intensely-Jewish Austrian School was so successful that the Austrians voted 99% in favor of being annexed by the German state in March 1938. Ludwig von Mises was on record as stating that socialism would bring about chaos and, in a bit of hyperbole, “the end of civilization.” In contrast to the NSDAP system, Austrian Economics was focused on hyper-individualism, the primacy of free trade, the repeal of export subsidies, and “interest as the charge for the use of capital—a compensation to the owner for abstaining from present consumption.” As Anthony Migchels writes:
Austrian Economics correctly identifies the manipulation of the money supply as the cause of the boom/bust, a.k.a business cycle. This is the little bit of truth necessary for the rest of the disinformation to have credibility. However, they completely ignore the wealth transfer through interest, which is of much greater significance. Interest has always been the Money Power’s main tool. They took power by creating wars, financing both sides, and having Governments go deeply into debt. This is the key issue: interest is a wealth transfer… The US Govt loses up to $700 billion per year in debt service. That’s a TARP every year. All for money that was printed the minute it was borrowed. But Austrian Economics will ‘fix’ that problem: we’ll be paying it for Gold-based credit instead. To add insult to injury: the boom/bust cycle will not change, which is the basic case for gold. Gold has been the standard for a long time and it didn’t stop the Money Power from creating asset bubbles and deflationary busts. Even under a full reserve banking system it is quite easy to manipulate the volume in circulation when you control a large part of the World’s gold reserves… In the debate you see the Keynes-Austrian Dialectic: Spending versus Austerity.
Both ignore interest, which is the hidden common ground… During modern history the financiers behind the throne clearly subjugated Governments. They don’t need the State. To them it is a competitor, a dangerous one too. They will use it as long as they can control it, but it is not for nothing they are trying to consolidate their financial power in a World Government of their own. Meanwhile, the gold versus fiat narrative is a distraction which allows them to sabotage all meaningful monetary reform.
Money must have a tangible backing, but gold is not the answer for the same reasons it has always been—control of supply. Rather, that backing is labor, for only labor is productive, and thus only labor has value. This does not have to refer exclusively to physical labor, for there are many kinds of invaluable intellectual and creative labors. It does, however, exclude speculation, usury, and other kinds of parasitic activity. Gottfried Feder expands:
These paragraphs demand the socialization of the entire monetary system. Money is only and exclusively a voucher for completed labor issued by a community that has its own state. To issue money-tokens is one of the sovereign fundamental rights of the state. The counterfeiting of the state's money-tokens is subject to the most severe punishments; thus it is a quite forceful social demand that the monetary system be placed under the control of the collectivity.
One counter-point made by the proponents of the present system is that technically not all central banks are privately-owned. Many are publicly-traded, government-owned, or some hybrid system. While this is true, as the relationship each central bank has with its state, shareholders, and people is often different, it is ultimately irrelevant for the simple fact that the locus of control is the same. All of the ZOG States are run as corporations, by corporations (and this can be indirectly—think of lobbyists in the United States), for corporations, backed by Money Power, ie-the banks. And besides, just because a company “goes public” obviously does not mean that it is owned by and accountable to the public. It is accountable to the shareholders only, and the majority shareholders to boot. When I state that all central banks save five are privately-owned, this is what I mean. It is to be understood the same way we refer to companies as private entities even if they are publicly-traded. To pretend otherwise is a semantic game only done in bad faith. The public-private “debate” is a false dilemma, for as long as the fundamentals remain the same, the core of the system stays unchanged. As George Monbiot writes:
Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of anonymities. The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers… The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. “The market” sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What “the market wants” tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. “Investment”…means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities “camouflages the sources of wealth,” leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.
The Market and its inscrutable machinations are only to be understood by the oracles on Wall Street or in the libertarian think tanks. For the rest of us peasants we rely on their divinations in order to understand the awesome cosmic power of the Free Market. We become totally subservient to the godlike omnipresence of transactions, debt accrual, compound interest, and other invisible “market forces” while everything around us becomes commodified and cheapened. When an economic system becomes sacrosanct, questioning its dogma becomes heresy.