Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Capitalism and the Jews

Capitalism and the Jews 14 Apr 2016 20:36 #1

  • annabelle
  • annabelle's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 1955
  • Likes received: 1432
Gilad Atzmon: Milton Friedman’s ‘Capitalism and the Jews’ Revisited



Given the severity and uncertainty of the economic crisis we are all experiencing, I suggest we look once more at the work of Milton Friedman, the leading economist and a staunch advocate of hard capitalism.

During the 1960s -80s Friedman was regarded by many academics, politicians and world leaders as the most important post- World War Two economist. Friedman was chief economic advisor to Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Menachem Begin. He also went on record advising the Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet.

It is far from surprising to note that more and more commentators have realised in recent years that it was Friedman’s ideology and advocacy of free enterprise, zero governmental intervention and privatisation that has led to the current financial turmoil. It was Milton Friedman’s philosophy that also contributed to the transformation of the West into a service economy.

But Friedman wasn’t just an economist: he was also a devout Zionist and a very proud Jew. Friedman was interested in the role of the Jews in world finance and politics. He also attempted to analyse and understand the attitude of Jews towards wealth. In 1972 Friedman spoke to The Mont Pelerin Society about “Capitalism and the Jews”. In 1978 he repeated the same talk, addressing Jewish students at the Chicago University’s Hillel institute.

I'd suggest that Friedman deserves our immediate attention, since he contributed to the rise of an ideology and school of thought that bears some responsibility for the rearrangement (some might say dismantling ) of the West's economy.

The Jewish Paradox

Friedman was, no doubt, a sharp intellect, and could offer sharp and succinct criticism. Yet, Friedman was not entirely 'a cosmopolitan' in every sense of that word, since he was deeply involved in Jewish concerns and Zionist affairs, and he was deliberately open and transparent about being so.

In the talks he gave in 1972 and 1978, Friedman examined a unique Jewish paradox : “Here are two propositions,” he said. “Each of them are validated by evidence yet they are both incompatible one with the other.”

The first proposition is that “there are few peoples if any in the world who owe so great a debt to free enterprise and competitive capitalism as the Jews.“

The second proposition is that “there are few peoples or any in the world who have done so much to undermine the intellectual foundation of capitalism as the Jews.”

How do we reconcile these two contradictory propositions?

As one may gather by now, Friedman, the free enterprise advocate, was clearly convinced that monopoly and government intervention were bad news in general; but, more crucially for him, they were also very bad for the Jews.

“Wherever there is a monopoly, whether it be private or governmental, there is room for the application of arbitrary criteria in the selection of the beneficiaries of the monopoly—whether these criteria be color of skin, religion, national origin or what not. Where there is free competition, only performance counts.”

Friedman, clearly prefers competition. According to him “the market is color blind. No one who goes to the market to buy bread knows or cares whether the wheat was grown by a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or atheist; by whites or blacks.”

Friedman’s elaborates further: “Any miller who wishes to express his personal prejudices by buying only from preferred groups is at a competitive disadvantage, since he is keeping himself from buying from the cheapest source. He can express his prejudice, but he will have to do so at his own expense, accepting a lower monetary income than he could otherwise earn.”

“Jews” Friedman continues, “have flourished most in those countries in which competitive capitalism had the greatest scope: Holland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and Britain and the U.S. in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.”

According to Friedman, it is also no accident that Jews suffered in Nazi Germany where they clearly defied free market ideology. Friedman fails to establish a causal or even rational relationship between the opposition to the free market, and anti Jewish policies.

However, the message Friedman conveys is clear -- Jews do benefit from hard capitalism and competitive markets.

Yet, Friedman is also genuinely intrigued by Jewish intellectuals' affinity with anti-Capitalism : “Jews have been a stronghold of anti-capitalist sentiment. From Karl Marx through Leon Trotsky to Herbert Marcuse, a sizable fraction of the revolutionary anti-capitalist literature has been authored by Jews.”

One may suggest at this point, that though it is undoubtedly true that Jews suffered in Soviet Russia and in Nazi Germany, and though it is also true that these countries defied free market ideology -- Friedman fails to establish a causal or even rational relationship between the opposition to the free market, and anti Jewish policies.



How could that be, Friedman wonders? Why is it that, despite the historical record of the benefits of competitive capitalism to the Jews; despite the intellectual explanation of this phenomenon that is implicit or explicit in much liberal literature from at least Adam Smith onwards, the Jews have been disproportionately anti-capitalist?

Friedman considers some answers --

Rather often we hear from Jews on the left that their affinity to humanitarian issues is driven by their ‘Jewish humanist heritage’. More than once I myself have commented that this is an utter lie. There is no such a Jewish heritage. Driven by tribal precepts, both Judaism and 'Jewish ideology' are devoid of universal ethics. If there are some remote patches of humanism in Jewish culture, these are certainly far from being universal.

Friedman, however, offered a further take on the subject: In direct reference to Lawrence Fuchs who argues that the anti-capitalism of the Jews is a “direct reflection of values derived from the Jewish religion and culture,” Friedman wonders -- if Jewish culture is, indeed, inherently anti capitalist (as Fuchs suggests) how is it then, that Jews failed to successfully combat Capitalism and free markets throughout their history? Friedman analyses that whilst “Jewish religion and culture date back over two millennia; the Jewish opposition to capitalism and attachment to socialism, is at the most, less than two centuries.”

Being a sharp intellect then, Friedman managed to dismantle Fuchs’s argument. He managed to counter the argument that Jewish culture is inherently socialist or humanist. If Judaism is, indeed, inherently and innately bound to such ethics, how is it that this humanism failed to become dominant throughout Jewish history?

Friedman also reflects in a surprisingly respectful manner, on the writing of alleged anti Semite Werner Sombart’s The Jews and Modern Capitalism. Sombart identifies Jewish ideology at the heart of capitalism. “Throughout the centuries, the Jews championed the cause of individual liberty in economic activity against the dominating view of the time. The individual was not to be hampered by regulations of any sort. I think that the Jewish religion has the same leading ideas as capitalism . . . “

Though Jewish intellectuals at the time were largely unhappy with Sombart’s book, Milton Friedman is brave enough to admit that there is nothing in Sombart’s book itself to justify any charge of anti-Semitism (though, he argues, there certainly is in Sombart’s later work). Friedman, a proud capitalist, tends actually to interpret Sombart’s book as “philo-Semitic”.

“If, like me”, says Friedman, “you regard competitive capitalism as the economic system that is most favorable to individual freedom, to creative accomplishments in technology and the arts, and to the widest possible opportunities for the ordinary man, then you will regard Sombart’s assignment to the Jews of a key role in the development of capitalism as high praise. You will, as I do, regard his book as philo-Semitic. “

Milton Friedman may even agree with early Marx, that Capitalism is Jewish 'by nature'. Yet, while Marx believed that in order for the world to liberate itself from Capitalism it had better emancipate itself from the Jews, for Friedman capitalism is of profound value and to be respected, and Jews should be praised for their inherent bond with this philosophy and its diverse ramifications. As far as Friedman is concerned, for Capitalism to prevail, Jews should continue to do what they are good at: and that is to trade freely in an open and competitive market.

Friedman seems to dismiss the presumed 'intellectual honesty' behind Jewish affiliation with the left and anti capitalism: He tends to argue that the Jewish intellectual inclination towards the left is a direct outcome of some political and historical circumstances, rather than ethical or ideological choice. He explains that, in his view, Jewish affiliation with the left is the product of a particular occurrence in Europe in the nineteenth century.

“Beginning with the era of the French revolution, the European political spectrum became divided into a “Left” and a “Right” along an axis that involved the issue of secularism. The Right (conservative, Monarchical, “clerical”) maintained that there must be a place for the church in the public order; the left (democratic, liberal, radical) held that there can be no Church at all . . . .”

It was only natural, then, for the Jews to join the left -- in fact Jews could only join the left.

“The axis separating left from right also formed a natural boundary for the pale of Jewish political participation. It was the left, with its new secular concept of citizenship, that had accomplished the Emancipation, and it was only the left that could see a place for the Jews in public life.”

Such a reasoning, then, views Jewish affiliation with the left as a politically opportunistic move instead of a form of ‘moral awakening’.

Such a reading of the 'Jewish left' reaffirms my own critical assessment. It also explains why some Jews join the left -- they support cosmopolitanism, solidarity, an international working class; and yet, they themselves often seem to prefer to operate within ‘Jews only’ racially orientated cells such as the Bund, Jewish Socialists or even Jews For Boycott of Israeli Goods. Friedman’s reasoning might also explain why so many Jews who had their roots in the so- called ‘left’, ended up preaching moral interventionism and Neo Conservatism.

Friedman argues also, that Jewish affiliation with the left might be better understood as an attempt to disown some anti Semitic stereotypes of the Jew as being “a merchant or moneylender who put commercial interests ahead of human values.”

According to Friedman, the Jewish anti capitalist is there to prove that, far from being money-grabbing, selfish and heartless, Jews are really public spirited, generous, and concerned with ideals rather than material goods. “How better to do so than to attack the market with its reliance on monetary values and impersonal transactions and to glorify the political process, to take as an ideal a state run by well-meaning people for the benefit of their fellow men?”

And yet, in Friedman's logic then, it is not a ‘moral awakening’ that moves the Jew to the left; it is neither humanism, nor solidarity and nor is it kindness, but, instead, it seems to be a desperate attempt to replace or amend the Jewish image.

Surprisingly enough, I find myself in total agreement with Friedman, though I would phrase it differently. I do differentiate between ‘the leftist who happen to be Jewish’- an innocent category inspired by humanism, and ‘the Jewish leftist- which seems to me to be a contradiction in terms, for the left aims to universally transcends itself beyond ethnicity, religion or race. Clearly ‘Jewish left’ is there to maintain a Jewish tribal ethno-centric identity at the heart of working class philosophy. 'Jewish left' is there to primarily serve Jewish interests

I noticed that Richard Kuper, the European Jewish activist behind the recent Jewish Boat to Gaza, was quoted as saying that their goal was to show that “not all Jews support Israeli policies toward Palestinians.”

It seems to me that the message Kuper conveyed was pretty clear: Rather than being driven entirely by a genuine care for the Palestinians in Gaza, the Jewish boat was also engaged in a symbolic exchange. It was also there to save the image of the Jews rather than solely providing humanitarian support. This fact alone may explain why the Jewish boat hardly carried any humanitarian aid for the Gazans. Rather than a ‘humanitarian aid mission for the Palestinians,’ it was probably also an ‘image rescue for the Jews’.

Seemingly then, Friedman managed to resolve the paradox between his two initial propositions (Jews being the benefactors capitalism vs. Jews being profoundly anti-capitalist) by offering an historical and political explanation: Jews or Jewish intellectuals are not really against capitalism; it was just the “special circumstances of nineteenth-century that drove Jews to the left, and the subconscious attempts by Jews to demonstrate to themselves and the world the fallacy of the anti-Semitic stereotype.” It was neither ideology nor ethics.

This interpretation explains why left Zionism was doomed to disappear. During his talks, Friedman reviewed the right/left political division in Israel. He noticed that two opposing traditions were at work in the Jewish State: “an ancient one--going back nearly two thousand years-- of finding ways around governmental restrictions (and) a modern one-- going back a century-- of belief in “democratic socialism” and “central planning.” Friedman was clever enough to gather already in 1972 that it is the “Jewish tradition”, rather than ‘socialism’, that would prevail. Friedman noticed already in the 1970’s that Israel was capitalist to the bone. He predicted that the short phase of Zionist ‘pseudo socialism’ was foreign to Jewish culture.

Yet. It isn’t just Israeli left that was doomed to die. Friedman's reading of Jewish culture also explains why the Bund died; it didn’t really spread to the West; it also explains why the legendary Mazpen and other Jewish tribal anti Zionist revolutionary groups have never attracted the Jewish masses.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Friedman is not free of fault. In spite of his succinct reading of the Jewish left/right divide there are a few crucial points that have to be made about Friedman’s reading of Jewish culture, and his reading of capitalism.

Friedman argues that the free market and competition is good for the Jews. Yet he is also adamant that Government intervention is a disaster that leads to anti Semitism and other forms of institutional bigotry. If Friedman’s model is valid, then Jews in the West had better brace themselves, for Western Governments are currently intervening in the markets in a desperate attempt to slowdown the inevitable collapse of what is left of our economy and relative wealth.

If Friedman’s model is correct, and intervention is indeed bad for the Jews, then anti Jewish anger could be immanent, especially considering the gigantic bailout intervention schemes put up by states in an attempt to save what remains of the Western economy.

But it goes further -- it is also plainly clear that the bailout schemes are there to amend a colossal disaster caused by the endorsement of Friedman’s own ideology. We are all paying a very heavy price for free enterprise, hard capitalism, or, in general, the ideologies Friedman was so enthusiastic about.

There is something Friedman didn’t tell his listeners in the 1970s -- He himself probably did not realise the full meaning of his economic model. He himself did not realise that the adoption of his philosophy by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher would eventually bring the West to its knees. He himself did not realise that it was his own advocacy of hard capitalism that would lead Western continents to poverty and deprivation. He perhaps did not realise back in the 1970s that it was his model that would eventually eliminate productivity, and every positive aspect of the welfare state. Milton Friedman did not realise at the time that service economy that suited some ethnic minorities for two millennia wouldn’t necessarily be a successful model once adopted into a macro model.

As Friedman had gathered, throughout their history Jews and other ethnic minorities were very effective operating as service economy within competitive and productive markets. However, Jews and other ethnic or religious minorities did well because others were there to work around them. The transforming of the West into a service economy driven by relentless greed, a process that followed Friedman’s economic precepts, is now proving to be a disaster. It means poverty and global depression. It is translated into alienation from labour and productivity.

www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-milton-friedmans-capitalism-and-the-jews-revisi.html
Last Edit: 14 Apr 2016 20:46 by annabelle.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy, Return of Zorro, Exorcist, Gaia

Capitalism and the Jews 14 Apr 2016 21:18 #2

  • peacenik
  • peacenik's Avatar
  • Online
  • Immortal
  • Posts: 2885
  • Likes received: 1459
The Jews I have known in my life, are all for Free Market Capitalism, all the way up until their families and friends have profited as much as possible, then they seem to embrace monopolistic ideology.
Birth is not a beginning; death is not an end. There is existence without limitation; there is continuity without a starting point.” ~ Chuang Tzu
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: rodin

Capitalism and the Jews 14 Apr 2016 22:58 #3

  • annabelle
  • annabelle's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 1955
  • Likes received: 1432
That really doesn't surprise me.

Capitalism Is Jewish Usury


(William III of Orange, who made the migration of
Jewish Capitalism from Amsterdam to Britain possible.)


Capitalism is Usury. Its defining belief is ‘return on investment’. This is an extension of the ‘time value’ of money, which is the central tenet of modern economics. Capitalism is unthinkable without banking and banking is institutionalized Usury.

Usury is Plutocracy. Compound interest makes it unavoidable that the very richest own everything in generations.

And this is indeed what happened: Capitalism is one huge global monopoly. All the major banks own each other and most Transnationals plus a huge chunk of land. This juggernaut was built with the plunder of Usury.

We have all seen that Rothschild was worth 50 billion in 1850. At 5% per year, this fortune would now be a trillion, at 8% per year Rothschild would now be worth hundreds of trillions.

This is why it has been said that ‘compound interest is the strongest force in the Universe’.

This is Usurious Usurpation.

The Rise of Capitalism

Modern Capitalism was first clearly visible in the Dutch Republic, where Italian Banking, expelled Iberian Jews, the Reformation, naval power and the acquisition of huge trade fortunes came together in the Amsterdam Empire, which would outshine its much bigger Spanish, British and even French competitors until the mid seventeenth century.

Everything that defines modern Capitalism was either invented or came to fruition in Amsterdam. The first Stock Exchange, Multinationals (the East Indies Company, which would rule over Indonesia with unrestrained Corporatocracy for centuries), and most importantly, a Central Bank, the ‘Amsterdamsche Wisselbank’. And of course a huge pile of money, that would be the envy of Europe even long after its ‘glory’ had subsided.

Amsterdam also saw the first bubble: the Tulip mania, 1637. This typical banker device, blowing bubbles with easy credit and then popping them by calling in loans, would haunt Western economies for centuries to come.


Up to 2500 guilders (estates could be bought for that kind of money)
were paid for a single Viceroy Tulip bulb at the peak .
“A Satire of Tulip Mania’ depicts speculators as brainless monkeys


The Dutch Republic resulted from a Calvinist rebellion against Catholic Spain. Calvin is considered by many to have been Jewish. He openly defended Usury. This was in an era that the Medieval era of Usury prohibition was in terminal decline.

Calvinist thought was also infected by the typically Jewish notion that wealth is a sign of God’s favor.

Notwithstanding Usury prohibition, Jewish Usury had been a huge issue throughout the Middle Ages and it does not require a great leap of the imagination to see that Capitalism is in fact the modern equivalent of what was once known as Jewish Usury.

Jewish fortunes and their methods played a large part in Amsterdam. Their ships would also dominate the growing slave trade on America. They had come from Spain, after being expelled in 1492. Holland was known at the time for its ‘tolerance’.

Amsterdam was the first great star of high finance. Opulence acquired through trade became Capital, looking for returns. And here we see that Capitalism is about finance, not production or consumption. Finance rules over producers, workers, consumers, farmers, crafstmen and industrialists alike.

They lend to those they control or want to control and withhold credit to those for whom they have no purpose. Usury gives them their take of any venture. By keeping money scarce, they keep labor cheap. This is how money rules.

Moving on to Britain

Amsterdam peaked in 1648, when the peace of Westphalia ended both the 80 year war for independence with Spain and the 30 year war in Germany. But after the peak comes the decline and already in the fifties problems began to mount when Cromwell landed a blow on Dutch naval supremacy with the Acts of Navigation.

The Jews had been expelled from Britain in 1290. This was a few decades after the Magna Carta, which clearly points at Jewish Usury as a huge problem at the time.

Cromwell, who was a calvinist Puritan, negotiated extensively with Amsterdam Jews about resettlement. He probably was a tool of Jewish/Amsterdam finance to begin with.

Resettlement came with the promise of making London a better Amsterdam. And while British merchants (and many others too) were against the re-admittance of the Jews, Cromwell went ahead anyway. The Puritans were optimistic and naive and thought they could ‘redeem’ the Jews. But while Jewish Capital indeed pushed Britain’s Empire to unprecedented heights, there was no redemption: by the end of the 19th century the British Aristocracy had been entirely Judaized.

While Cromwell, as a tool of Amsterdam Imperialism, ultimately failed, the Jews did not relent and they had a second shot at London with the Glorious Revolution, when William III of Orange, Stadtholder of Holland, became William III of Britain and the Dutch Republic and England were united in a personal union.

He repaid his financial backers by chartering the Bank of England in 1694 and this was the official entry of Capitalism in Britain. It came with the end of sovereign money and the ascent of Gold: until then the British economy had been financed with Talley Sticks, simple pieces of wood issued by the King. British partners in the Bank paid for their shares with them, but the first thing the Bank did was take them out of circulation. The Bank of England is only the eighth bank in history and is the second oldest to survive today.

The United States

The real history of the United States is not about the War of Independence and the Constitution. It’s about banking.

The United States did not revolt over ‘taxes without representation’. According to Benjamin Franklin the real reason for the War of Independence was that Whitehall forced scarce money through Britain’s Gold Standard on the Colonies, who had thrived with their own Colonial Scrip. A depression was the inevitable result.

Only a few years after nominal independence, Hamilton’s first Bank of the United States brought Capitalism to the United States. It was closed in 1800, but in 1816, in the aftermath of the war with Britain, a second Bank of the United States (a privately owned corporation) was opened with a 20 year charter.

The heroic President Andrew Jackson did not renew this charter and miraculously survived an attempt on his life. His last words, ‘I killed the Bank’ still ring triumphantly through the ages. Unfortunately, he failed to replace it with a decent monetary system and the country was plunged in a depression because of a tanking money supply.

This left the Whigs, Abraham Lincoln prominently among them, plenty of scope to campaign for a new ‘National’ Bank, which came in the aftermath of the Civil War.

In 1913 the Federal Reserve Bank was founded. This privately owned corporation is owned by primarily Jewish ‘member banks’. The presidents of the Federal Reserve are always Jewish and by far most of its board members are too. It’s no secret Wall Street is run by the Jews and is now the global standard bearer of Jewish Usury with derivatives being the scam du jour.

Of course there are Americans in Wall Street too, just as there are Englishmen in the City or Germans in Deutsche Bank, but whereas these nationalities compete amongst each other, the Jews are strong in all nations and this gives them supremacy.

Equally true is that the Jewish many gain nothing from the banking prowess of their ‘elites’. They may have some privileges, but on the other hand they’re also easily duped into nasty affairs or sacrificed like the pawns we all are.

But considering the above history of Capitalism and Jewish Usury, it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that they are the same thing.

Conclusion

YHVH emphatically orders the Jews several times to conquer the world with Usury in Deutoronomy, for instance: “15:6 For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.”

Pivotal documents from the medieval era squarely point at Jewish Usury. We have already mentioned the Magna Carta, but there is also for instance the Quran: ‘That they (the Jews) took usury, though they were forbidden; and that they devoured men’s substance wrongfully;- we have prepared for those among them who reject faith a grievous punishment.’ (sura 4.161)

Capitalism and its ‘return on investment’ is clearly the successor of medieval Jewish Usury. It arose during the destruction of medieval Usury prohibition. Its typical devices, Usury, Banking, the Stock Exchange, asset bubbles, Transnationals, all were already present in Amsterdam. It was this force that migrated to Britain and the US. It was in these three financial Empires that Capitalism showed its unrestrained imperialist designs.

Already the poor lose up to 50% of their income to Usury, mostly passed on by producers in prices. The middle classes are somewhat better off, but they are being decapitated everywhere. Usury only benefits the richest 10%, while most of the money ends up with the ‘fabulously’ wealthy.

The enslavement is total: most people work the first two and half days of the week to pay off the bank. Even if they have no debts.

Capitalism is the core of the Jewish Question. All their other depravities, including Zionism and (Cultural) Marxism were built and financed from the Capitalist powerbase.

The Jewish Question can only be reasonably resolved by reforming money and ending its rule through Usury.

realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/capitalism-is-jewish-usury/
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy, Return of Zorro, Exorcist, Flare

Capitalism and the Jews - USURA by Ezra Pound 14 Apr 2016 23:09 #4

  • PFIZIPFEI
  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20433
  • Likes received: 7960


USURA by Ezra Pound






deleted by ytgogollum allegedly "worldwide" on FRG channels - but still available ...


TWIMC: FU

.
"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
My Zone by PFIZIPFEI
Last Edit: 14 Apr 2016 23:36 by PFIZIPFEI.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Return of Zorro

Capitalism and the Jews 15 Apr 2016 09:25 #5

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7045
  • Likes received: 1539
annabelle wrote:
Gilad Atzmon: Milton Friedman’s ‘Capitalism and the Jews’ Revisited



“Wherever there is a monopoly, whether it be private or governmental, there is room for the application of arbitrary criteria in the selection of the beneficiaries of the monopoly—whether these criteria be color of skin, religion, national origin or what not. Where there is free competition, only performance counts.”

Friedman, clearly prefers competition. According to him “the market is color blind. No one who goes to the market to buy bread knows or cares whether the wheat was grown by a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or atheist; by whites or blacks.”

Friedman’s elaborates further: “Any miller who wishes to express his personal prejudices by buying only from preferred groups is at a competitive disadvantage, since he is keeping himself from buying from the cheapest source. He can express his prejudice, but he will have to do so at his own expense, accepting a lower monetary income than he could otherwise earn.”

“Jews” Friedman continues, “have flourished most in those countries in which competitive capitalism had the greatest scope: Holland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and Britain and the U.S. in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.”

According to Friedman, it is also no accident that Jews suffered in Nazi Germany where they clearly defied free market ideology. Friedman fails to establish a causal or even rational relationship between the opposition to the free market, and anti Jewish policies.

However, the message Friedman conveys is clear -- Jews do benefit from hard capitalism and competitive markets.

More than once I myself have commented that this is an utter lie. There is no such a Jewish heritage. Driven by tribal precepts, both Judaism and 'Jewish ideology' are devoid of universal ethics. If there are some remote patches of humanism in Jewish culture, these are certainly far from being universal.

Herr Doktor Friedman is right, as so often he was. :thumbup:

Found this just now too, here:
PFIZIPFEI wrote:
Milton Friedman knew: either the welfare state or open borders
...
Milton Friedman we owe the realization that you can have either a welfare state or open borders, but not both. A look at the international migration flows confirms this thesis: skilled and motivated immigrants from Asia and Africa to go to the USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. There use is rewarded - as comparatively low taxes. Welfare scroungers there have no chance of legal immigration. For someone who wants to achieve something on their own, Europe is however not a good goal. The Old World, with its plethora of "free" oft social kitsch acts like a magnet to those guys who - want to invest in the social hammock - without any consideration. For Europe, only the dregs to hike willing consequently remains subject to the conditions offered left ...

:thumbup: :thumbup:
Taken from here:

Your no border stance combined with a socialist view is also an unsustainable impossibility.

You can be:
- for open borders and for capitalism
- against open borders and for capitalism
- against open borders and against capitalism

You cannot be:
- for open borders and against capitalism

As that requires a form of government (controlled, non-free, markets). State welfare for instance. Having no borders so everyone would be free to migrate to places with a controlled market where socialist policies (so based on the forced distrbution of "wealth") are in place means that other people are forced to pay for that open immigration. Once it's force it cannot be anarchism.

And that is exactly the whole root of the problem of this mass immigration crisis of this moment.

I have no problems with open borders and thus free immigration because I am a capitalist. I defend the natural state of things where no force is involved. People may migrate freely to other countries but in order to survive they have to make a living themselves. NOT forcing others to pay for their "free" stuff. That is immoral.

So in the current statist situation, where people are robbed from their property and fruits of their own hard work open borders are not possible. They lead to downfall of everything and everyone. Exactly what is happening in Europe where the millions of migrants are placing a burden on not only the present population (of WHATEVER race, colour, culture, religion or previous migration background), but mainly through the horrible system of state loans and thus state debt on the names of their innocent children and grandchildren.

:wissl:
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Capitalism and the Jews 15 Apr 2016 13:08 #6

  • annabelle
  • annabelle's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 1955
  • Likes received: 1432
Anarcho-Hucksters: There is Nothing Anarchistic about Capitalism

From each according to their gullibility, to each, according to his greed.”

Capitalists are always eager to put glossy packaging on tired old products in order to put one over on the purchasing public. In this way, they hope to rekindle demand for what is actually the same product they have been providing people in the past.

This is the rationale behind what can only be called “anarcho” chic; that is, the usurpation and appropriation of anarchist forms without anarchist substance, in an effort to create the illusion that somehow, magically, capitalism is about freedom, liberty, and anarchy!

The following terms are generally used by these laissez-faire capitalists to describe themselves:

• “anarcho” capitalist

• libertarian

• libertarian capitalist

• anarch

• “anarchist”

While we (actual anarchists, e.g., those who oppose rulers) can’t claim possession of any term, we have an obligation to point out the glaring inconsistencies in the laissez-faire capitalist use of anarchistic terminology. They use the term “anarchist”, but at the expense of their credibility — why? Because their self-definition doesn’t hold up to even the most rudimentary questioning.

“Anarcho” capitalists are, in fact, simply capitalists who object to the State cutting into their own profits by way of regulations and taxation. That is their sole gripe with the State. They see the bureaucrat as the nefarious boogeyman in their lives, motivated solely to enmesh the world in red tape — simply out of maliciousness alone.

“Anarcho” capitalists do not object to private property, to class distinctions, social stratification, concentrated wealth, and other bourgeois trappings in society. Their idea of a utopia is a world of unaccountable, unfettered corporate power where literally everything is up for sale and is negotiable.

Humans for Hire: Selling Yourself for Fun and Profit

Far from being the vindication of humanist values, the “anarcho” capitalist ethic is the denial of them before arbitrary, inhumane market forces. The “ideal” social interaction, in “anarcho” capitalist terms, is that of prostitution.

Prostitution, e.g., selling your services for an anticipated monetary gain, is the highest definition of “anarcho” capitalist “empowerment”, amazingly. The ability to sell yourself to whomever you want is the “anarcho” capitalist idea of “freedom”.

Nothing would be free from market forces. Not families, not children, not the environment, and, of course, not you! Literally everything would have a price tag! Clean air, clean water, housing, human organs — each not an end unto themselves, but a marketable commodity: a product! In such a dystopia, anything which could not be readily translated into product would be cast out as pointless and without value (measured only in economic terms, of course).

Thus, visual art would become, instead, graphic design; writing would be merely ad copy; poetry reduced to syrupy greeting card maxims; and so on — The humanities as we know them would wither away. This is occurring already in higher education, as humanities departments get less and less academic funding.

To the “anarcho” capitalist, there is no problem here. If humanities were “worth” anything, economically, universities would invest in them more heavily. Why this attitude?

More = Better??

It is because, to the “anarcho” capitalist, what is “good” is purely what is profitable. Conversely, that which is not profitable is termed “bad” (or at best, “worthless”).

You can see how this attitude has poisoned our existing culture to the extent that it has. How do you defend an open park along such harsh, utilitarian lines when to the “anarcho” capitalist an open park is a parking lot waiting to happen?

This quantitative ethic messes up their reasoning. If what is profitable is good, then a book that sells a million copies MUST be good, right? Or a coat that costs $2,000 has to be high quality, by their own definition. But this isn’t so. A good book may be bought by a lot of people — but then again, it may be ignored for generations! The fact that lots of people buy it doesn’t make it intrinsically good!

Moreover, what sells the most tends to be that which appeals to the largest number of people — this means that things which challenge or threaten people the least will typically do the best, economically. It is in this manner that within a capitalistic society, culture fizzles out, as art and literature are co-opted into feel-good propagandistic fluff.

Putting Profits Above People

Because “anarcho” capitalists use the market as their sole gauge of good and bad, they are, in effect, unable to make effective moral judgments! This percolates into all of their thinking — they revere wealthy entrepreneurs as examples of virtue, basing this solely on their quantitative ethic. If this ethic holds true, then, in the US, Bill Gates must be the most virtuous person in human history! General Motors must be the most virtuous of corporations! This is clearly untrue, therefore: Merit (e.g., good and bad) cannot be ascertained in quantitative economic terms.

“Anarcho” capitalist “freedom” is the freedom to have anything which you can afford! Thus, those with the most money in an “anarcho” capitalist society have the MOST freedom — which means that those with the LEAST money have the LEAST freedom. This bothers true anarchists very much. It doesn’t trouble “anarcho” capitalists in the least.

To anarchists, freedom has to be available for ALL, not just those with the cash to afford it! Otherwise, it is meaningless. True anarchists would never put a price tag on freedom!

It is this difference that reveals the manifestly bourgeois, reactionary quality of “anarcho” capitalism, contrasted with the revolutionary, radical outlook necessary for anarchistic consistency.

“Anarcho” capitalism: Bourgeois Bombast

“Anarcho” capitalists talk of freedom as a negative, in a (Ayn) Randian definition of: “the absence of physical violence”. They see capitalism as the epitome of this ethic, and the State as the antithesis of it (defining the State as “the institution with a monopoly of force”).

This is the cornerstone of their professed anarchism. They say, “we oppose the State; anarchists oppose government; ergo, we are anarchists.”

But anarchists look at that statement and ask:

• What of the boss in the workplace?

• What of the wealthy owner of property?

• What of the capitalist industrialist?

• What of the church elder?

• What of the judge?

• What of the patriarch of a family?

Don’t these people have very real authority over others’ lives?

“Anarchy” with Bosses?

The “anarcho” capitalist has no problem with rulers below State level, so long as they don’t impinge on profit and property! So, if your boss eavesdropped on your calls, the “anarcho” capitalist would say, “hey, you can always get a new job” rather than taking the anarchist stance of “how dare X boss eavesdrop on their employees?! We must work to end workplace tyranny!”

In fact, to the “anarcho” capitalist, being able to work for whomever you want (including working for clients [e.g., “self”-employment) is what they consider “freedom”. This amounts to choosing who gets to be your boss! Some choice, huh?

Anarchists, in contrast, don’t think there should BE any bosses. Everyone pulls their fair share of the collective social burden of day-to-day living. And, while everyone works, the distinction between this and typical capitalist drudgery is that, in anarchy, you’d be working for your own needs, rather than for the profit of another! As such, you wouldn’t have to put in 40+ hour weeks lining the pockets of whoever owns the company you work for (or servicing your clients’ needs).

“Freedom” to Starve

But “anarcho” capitalists don’t want any part of that; they cling to vague notions of “freedom” and “liberty” that simply fail to stand up under scrutiny. The only “freedom” that exists in the capitalist laissez-fairyland “anarcho” capitalists defend is the freedom to work for another’s gain or starve!

Any rational being knows that you have to work to survive. This is a law of nature. But in capitalist society, some people (owners), don’t HAVE to work! They live off of the surplus (that is, profit) earned by others — their employees! So, magically, some people are able, within capitalist society, to defy the laws of nature — they profit without working for it!

But profits come from property; that is, assets that allow for the generation of surplus. And for this to occur, these owners must own capital (land, factories, etc.) Which means that any old Joe can’t come onto “their” property and live off it — otherwise, no surplus...no profit...no capitalism!

In other words, the “choice” of working for another or starving isn’t a choice, in capitalist society, because the worker can’t go off and live on their own; somebody owns the very ground they walk on.

And this leads us to the next glaring inconsistency of “anarcho” capitalism: the absolute necessity of the State in their affairs. All rhetoric aside, laissez-faire capitalists NEED the State to uphold contracts and defend property “rights”. Otherwise, there is nothing to prevent squatters from coming along and usurping someone’s holdings.

Goons with Guns

So, these selfsame “anarchs” will rely on law enforcement personnel and paramilitary goons to protect their property. Now, they note that these latter-day Pinkertons would not be instruments of Statist oppression, but rather, are employees of private “defense firms”. But I guarantee that the truncheons they use on you will feel the same, regardless of who their boss is. In fact, there are fewer safeguards with paramilitaries, because, unlike municipal police forces, these are paid employees of the capitalists in question! Thus, if their boss wants them to shoot strikers, they’ll do it, or risk losing their employment! And you know what? This is exactly what happened during the golden age of laissez-faire capitalism, when the Pinkerton Detective Agency serviced industrialists across the United States.

Further, the “anarcho” capitalists will still require a court system, and thus laws, to uphold property rights and contracts! These private judicial firms would offer the “best” justice to the clients who paid them the best! Some justice!

Laissez-faire capitalists don’t particularly care what happens to people; despite their lofty declarations about liberty and freedom, their actions put the lie to them. They say, “nobody FORCES you to work for somebody else”, but if you don’t have your own capital reserve (like most of us), what choice do you have? You must work or starve!

Owners Uber Alles

Nothing humanistic about this ideology! In fact, laissez-faire capitalism has much more in common with fascism, the old enemy of anarchism, than with democracy! The simplest exploration of the workplace reveals this reality: who has the final say in the workplace...the average worker, or the owner? The owner, of course. That’s why they’re called “the Boss”. It’s their property, the laissez-faire capitalists say, so they have the authority. Pure, top-down, fascistic decision-making in action.

Now, certainly, workplaces make a grand show of including workers in the decision-making process, but you’ll find that this involvement focuses on ratifying and executing decisions the owners have already made,instead of the owners seeking the advice and experience of the people who actually DO THE WORK within the company! Ultimately, where a given property is concerned, the owners have the final authority. Anarchists rightly see this as deeply authoritarian; “anarcho” capitalists pretend otherwise, and advise you to start your own company, or become self-employed (as if these were effective remedies)!

Anarchism is about challenging unjust authority (and any authority wrought by coercion is unjust); capitalism is about making a profit from the labor of others. The two have nothing in common! The “anarchs”, “anarcho” capitalists, laissez-faire capitalists, and Libertarians of this world don’t object to rulers, except when rulers cut into their profits! This makes them not anarchistic at all, but manifestly bourgeois in character, ethic, and temperament. “Anarcho” capitalism is a reactionary credo with more in common with postindustrial feudalism and outright fascism than anything remotely anarchistic, for the aforementioned reasons.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/daibhidh-anarcho-hucksters-there-is-nothing-anarchistic-about-capitalism





Werner Sombart on the Jewish Character

(The distinguished German sociologist Werner Sombart, 1863-1941, was an informed and generally sympathetic observer of the Jewish people.)



In his book "The Jews & Modern Capitalism," (1911) Sombart credits Jews for the rise of capitalism which he regards as the most dynamic force in the modern world.

In the excerpt below (from pp. 183-7) he describes the Jewish character as overly intellectual and goal-oriented.

"[The Jews'] greatest interest is always in the result of a thing, not in the thing itself. It is un-Jewish to regard any activity as an end in itself; un-Jewish to live your life without having any purpose, to leave all to chance; un-Jewish to get harmless pleasure out of Nature."

In the words of Goethe, "No Jew, not even the most insignificant, but is busy towards the achievement of some worldly, temporary or momentary aim." This activity often enough degenerates into restlessness. He must for ever be up and doing, for ever managing something and carrying it to fruition.

The intellectuality of the Jew is so strong that it tends to develop at the expense of other mental qualities, and the mind is apt to become one-sided.

The Jew certainly sees remarkably clearly, but he does not see much.

He does not think of his environment as something alive, and that is why he has lost the true conception of life, of its oneness, of its being an organism, a natural growth. In short, he has lost the true conception of the personal side of life. General experience must surely support this view; but if other proofs are demanded they will be found in the pecuiarities of Jewish law, which abolished personal relationships and replaced them by impersonal, abstract connections or activities or aims.

Hence the [Jewish] lack of sympathy for every status where the nexus is a personal one. The Jews' whole being is opposed to all that is usually understood by chivalry, to all sentimentality, knight-errantry, feudalism, patriarchalism. Nor does he comprehend a social order based on relationships such as these. "Estates of the realm" and craft organizations are a loathing to him.

The conception of the universe in the mind of such an intellectual people must perforce have been that of a structure well-ordered in accordance with reason. By the aid of reason, therefore, they sought to understand the world; they were rationalists, both in theory and in practice.

Now as soon as a strong consciousness of the ego attaches itself to the predominating intellectuality in the thinking being, he will tend to group the world round that ego. In other words, he will look at the world from the point of view of end, or goal, or purpose.

Take any expression of the Jewish genius and you will be certain to find in it this teleological tendency, which has sometimes been called extreme subjectivity. Whether or no the Indo-Germanic races are objective and the Semitic subjective,certain it is that the Jews are the most subjective of peoples. The Jew never loses himself in the outer world, never sinks in the depth of the cosmos, never soars in the endless realms of thought, but, as Jellinek well puts it, dives below the surface to seek for pearls.

He brings everything into relation with his ego. He is for ever asking why, what for, what will it bring? Cui bono? His greatest interest is always in the result of a thing, not in the thing itself. It is un-Jewish to regard any activity, be it what you will, as an end in itself; un-Jewish to live your life without having any purpose, to leave all to chance; un-Jewish to get harmless pleasure out of Nature.

The Jew has taken all that is in Nature and made of it "the loose pages of a text-book of ethics which shall advance the higher moral life." The Jewish religion, as we have already seen, is teleological in its aim; in each of its regulations it as the ethical norm in view. The entire universe, in the Jew's eyes, is something that was made in accordance with a plan.

No term is more familiar to the ear of the Jew than Tachlis, which means purpose, aim, end or goal. If you are to do anything it must have a tachlis; life itself, whether as a whole or in its single activities, must have some tachlis, and so must the universe. Those who assert that the meaning of Life, of the World, is not tachlis but tragedy, the Jew will reckon as foolish visionaries.

How deeply the teleological view of things is embedded in the nature of the Jew may be seen in the case of those of them who, like the Chassidim, pay no attention to the needs of practical life because "there is no purpose in them." There is no purpose in making a living, and so they let their wives and children starve, and devote themselves to the study of their sacred books.

When this attitude of mind that seeks for a purpose in all things is united with a strong will, with a large fund of energy (as is generally the case with the Jew), it ceases to be merely a point of view; it becomes a policy. The man sets himself a goal and makes for it, allowing nothing whatever to turn him aside from his course; he is determined, if you like, stiff-necked. Heine in characterizing his people called it stubbornness, and Goethe said that the essence of the Jewish character was energy and the pursuit of direct ends.

www.henrymakow.com/werner-sombart-on-jewish-character.html
Last Edit: 15 Apr 2016 13:43 by annabelle.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy, Exorcist, Flare

Capitalism and the Jews 15 Apr 2016 19:58 #7

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7045
  • Likes received: 1539
Some set of funny opinions by some user Daibhidh? WTF is this person?
annabelle wrote:
Anarcho-Hucksters: There is Nothing Anarchistic about Capitalism

From each according to their gullibility, to each, according to his greed.”

Capitalists are always eager to put glossy packaging on tired old products in order to put one over on the purchasing public. In this way, they hope to rekindle demand for what is actually the same product they have been providing people in the past.

This is the rationale behind what can only be called “anarcho” chic; that is, the usurpation and appropriation of anarchist forms without anarchist substance, in an effort to create the illusion that somehow, magically, capitalism is about freedom, liberty, and anarchy!

What "illusion"? :roll:
The following terms are generally used by these laissez-faire capitalists to describe themselves:

• “anarcho” capitalist

• libertarian

• libertarian capitalist

• anarch

• “anarchist”

While we (actual anarchists, e.g., those who oppose rulers) can’t claim possession of any term, we have an obligation to point out the glaring inconsistencies in the laissez-faire capitalist use of anarchistic terminology. They use the term “anarchist”, but at the expense of their credibility — why? Because their self-definition doesn’t hold up to even the most rudimentary questioning.

Free market = no rulers. Being against a free market means you are for a controlled market. Controlled by... yes, rulers.
“Anarcho” capitalists are, in fact, simply capitalists who object to the State cutting into their own profits by way of regulations and taxation. That is their sole gripe with the State.

Strawman. Not the "sole gripe". Wars, imperialism, "rules" that don't apply to State Employees, just for the people.
They see the bureaucrat as the nefarious boogeyman in their lives, motivated solely to enmesh the world in red tape — simply out of maliciousness alone.

“Anarcho” capitalists do not object to private property,

No, smart-ass, private property is one of the core values of anarchocapitalism. Why are you objecting to private property? Who is authorised to take away private property? A ruler? :roll:
to class distinctions, social stratification,

Social stratification is and always will be there. It's a result of the strangling state anyways.
concentrated wealth,

A free market makes that concentration:
- less abundant - more competition
- fair - not only the benefits are concentrated, also the risks

It is the crapitalism corporatism that concentrates wealth in an unfair way; the risks are outsourced.
and other bourgeois trappings in society. Their idea of a utopia is a world of unaccountable, unfettered corporate power where literally everything is up for sale and is negotiable.

Corporate power? :roll: Corporations can only exist because of crapitalism. :facepalm:
Humans for Hire: Selling Yourself for Fun and Profit

Far from being the vindication of humanist values, the “anarcho” capitalist ethic is the denial of them before arbitrary, inhumane market forces. The “ideal” social interaction, in “anarcho” capitalist terms, is that of prostitution.

"inhumane market forces", what the hell is this character talking about?
Prostitution, e.g., selling your services for an anticipated monetary gain, is the highest definition of “anarcho” capitalist “empowerment”, amazingly. The ability to sell yourself to whomever you want is the “anarcho” capitalist idea of “freedom”.

Nothing would be free from market forces. Not families, not children, not the environment, and, of course, not you! Literally everything would have a price tag! Clean air, clean water, housing, human organs — each not an end unto themselves, but a marketable commodity: a product! In such a dystopia, anything which could not be readily translated into product would be cast out as pointless and without value (measured only in economic terms, of course).

Strawmanning again. The idea that everything only has economic value is a very limited view on the world and the humans interacting within it. There are so many things that have emotional value, historical value, esthetic value that is impossible to express in numbers.
Thus, visual art would become, instead, graphic design; writing would be merely ad copy; poetry reduced to syrupy greeting card maxims; and so on — The humanities as we know them would wither away. This is occurring already in higher education, as humanities departments get less and less academic funding.

WTF, taking "higher education" in a notoriously NON-free market as "argument" against capitalism? Boy oh boy, this type really does not know where to look for arguments. :iitm:
To the “anarcho” capitalist, there is no problem here. If humanities were “worth” anything, economically, universities would invest in them more heavily. Why this attitude?

More = Better??

It is because, to the “anarcho” capitalist, what is “good” is purely what is profitable. Conversely, that which is not profitable is termed “bad” (or at best, “worthless”).

Bullshit. And AGAIN strawmanning. What is good (= moral) is virtue. What is bad (= immoral) is the initiation of force. Profitability has nothing to do with that.
You can see how this attitude has poisoned our existing culture to the extent that it has. How do you defend an open park along such harsh, utilitarian lines when to the “anarcho” capitalist an open park is a parking lot waiting to happen?

WTF is he talking about? First taking the present non-free market as an argument against free markets and then a ridiculous painting of a parking lot in a world he has no idea about because it doesn't exist.
This quantitative ethic messes up their reasoning. If what is profitable is good, then a book that sells a million copies MUST be good, right? Or a coat that costs $2,000 has to be high quality, by their own definition. But this isn’t so. A good book may be bought by a lot of people — but then again, it may be ignored for generations! The fact that lots of people buy it doesn’t make it intrinsically good!

That's right, so what you have done is attack your own strawman and beaten it. And now? :yerright:
Moreover, what sells the most tends to be that which appeals to the largest number of people — this means that things which challenge or threaten people the least will typically do the best, economically. It is in this manner that within a capitalistic society, culture fizzles out, as art and literature are co-opted into feel-good propagandistic fluff.

You have no way of knowing what will happen in a free market, but that doesn't stop you from painting false paintings with false colours, of course...
Putting Profits Above People

Because “anarcho” capitalists use the market as their sole gauge of good and bad, they are, in effect, unable to make effective moral judgments!

Moral judgments are based on behaviour, freedom of choice. If a person behaves immorally, you can judge them. If they just sell or buy a product there's no morality in there.
This percolates into all of their thinking — they revere wealthy entrepreneurs as examples of virtue, basing this solely on their quantitative ethic. If this ethic holds true, then, in the US, Bill Gates must be the most virtuous person in human history! General Motors must be the most virtuous of corporations! This is clearly untrue, therefore: Merit (e.g., good and bad) cannot be ascertained in quantitative economic terms.

The guy cannot stop building up straw men and attack them. Fucking Bill Gates, one of the main players in the present corporatistic crapitalistic "system". :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
“Anarcho” capitalist “freedom” is the freedom to have anything which you can afford!

So, what is your definition of "anarcho"; no freedom to have anything you can afford? Enforced by whom, smartass? :wissl:
Thus, those with the most money in an “anarcho” capitalist society have the MOST freedom — which means that those with the LEAST money have the LEAST freedom. This bothers true anarchists very much. It doesn’t trouble “anarcho” capitalists in the least.
Strawman number 29421...
"True anarchists"? What are those?
To anarchists, freedom has to be available for ALL, not just those with the cash to afford it! Otherwise, it is meaningless. True anarchists would never put a price tag on freedom!

Hollow words. Freedom is available to all if there are no rulers to enforce things on all. Cash is a mean, there are other means. If someone writes a poem, that has little economic value.
It is this difference that reveals the manifestly bourgeois, reactionary quality of “anarcho” capitalism, contrasted with the revolutionary, radical outlook necessary for anarchistic consistency.

Against free markets is against consistency. This guy really has no clue what he's talking about.
“Anarcho” capitalism: Bourgeois Bombast

“Anarcho” capitalists talk of freedom as a negative, in a (Ayn) Randian definition of: “the absence of physical violence”. They see capitalism as the epitome of this ethic, and the State as the antithesis of it (defining the State as “the institution with a monopoly of force”).

Is that untrue? No.
This is the cornerstone of their professed anarchism. They say, “we oppose the State; anarchists oppose government; ergo, we are anarchists.”

Strawman number 343927... :roll:
But anarchists look at that statement and ask:

• What of the boss in the workplace?

Everyone is free to change jobs, if he doesn't like his manager or employer, what did this "anarchist" want to do, remove him, using the initiation of force? :roll: With which authority? :facepalm:
• What of the wealthy owner of property?

What about him? Envy is a socialist sin, not of a free market proponent.
• What of the capitalist industrialist?

Idem.
• What of the church elder?

Churches (in a general sense, so also mosques, synagogues, temples etc.) only have indoctrination as weapon. The State has indoctrination AND "laws" AND guns.

If you do not like the church elder, you are free to choose another church or stay away from religion completely. What does this anarchist want to do, remove him again? With which authority?
• What of the judge?

Judges in the present are enforcing "laws" that are unequal for people. State employees can kill, steal and counterfeit, the general population cannot. In a free market system with dispute resolution that unequality is not there.
• What of the patriarch of a family?

What about him?
Don’t these people have very real authority over others’ lives?

A dentist has authority too. Merited authority. I am not going to work on my own teeth, I go to a dentist who has authority because he/she's an expert on what this person is doing. The key word is unmerited authority; based on nothing but force. Crazy Ape A ruling over Ape B, just because, well, he says so. Statism.
“Anarchy” with Bosses?

The “anarcho” capitalist has no problem with rulers below State level, so long as they don’t impinge on profit and property! So, if your boss eavesdropped on your calls, the “anarcho” capitalist would say, “hey, you can always get a new job” rather than taking the anarchist stance of “how dare X boss eavesdrop on their employees?! We must work to end workplace tyranny!”

If the people working in the business do not like their manager or employer they have different means. Change jobs would be a good one, but if they use strikes, ostracism, etc. based on arguments, rationality, good for them.
In fact, to the “anarcho” capitalist, being able to work for whomever you want (including working for clients [e.g., “self”-employment) is what they consider “freedom”. This amounts to choosing who gets to be your boss! Some choice, huh?

WTF is he talking about? You're perfectly free not to work. But what does this "anarchist" think will happen if you do not have clients? The food is just falling from the trees in the laps of the anarchist?
Anarchists, in contrast, don’t think there should BE any bosses. Everyone pulls their fair share of the collective social burden of day-to-day living. And, while everyone works, the distinction between this and typical capitalist drudgery is that, in anarchy, you’d be working for your own needs, rather than for the profit of another! As such, you wouldn’t have to put in 40+ hour weeks lining the pockets of whoever owns the company you work for (or servicing your clients’ needs).

Ah, finally this "anarchist" is explaining what his thinking is. "Everyone pulls their fair share of the collective social 'burden'"?

What is a "fair share"?
Collective?
Social burden?

In a free market you are free to work for your own needs. Profit that is. But profit was bad? :facepalm:
“Freedom” to Starve

But “anarcho” capitalists don’t want any part of that; they cling to vague notions of “freedom” and “liberty” that simply fail to stand up under scrutiny. The only “freedom” that exists in the capitalist laissez-fairyland “anarcho” capitalists defend is the freedom to work for another’s gain or starve!

The box of strawmen of this type is virtually bottomless... :iitm:
Any rational being knows that you have to work to survive. This is a law of nature.

Exactly.
But in capitalist society, some people (owners), don’t HAVE to work! They live off of the surplus (that is, profit) earned by others — their employees! So, magically, some people are able, within capitalist society, to defy the laws of nature — they profit without working for it!

What gives this type the idea that a business owner doesn't work? :facepalm:
But profits come from property; that is, assets that allow for the generation of surplus. And for this to occur, these owners must own capital (land, factories, etc.) Which means that any old Joe can’t come onto “their” property and live off it — otherwise, no surplus...no profit...no capitalism!

WTF is he talking about? Profit is any higher value you gain that you invest in something. What's wrong with that?
In other words, the “choice” of working for another or starving isn’t a choice, in capitalist society, because the worker can’t go off and live on their own; somebody owns the very ground they walk on.
Starving? Why not use even darker colours to paint your false painting, fake "anarchist"? :roll:
And this leads us to the next glaring inconsistency of “anarcho” capitalism: the absolute necessity of the State in their affairs. All rhetoric aside, laissez-faire capitalists NEED the State to uphold contracts and defend property “rights”. Otherwise, there is nothing to prevent squatters from coming along and usurping someone’s holdings.

Strawman again! The State is the enforcer of violent involuntary interaction. That is directly opposing capitalism. :facepalm:
Goons with Guns

So, these selfsame “anarchs” will rely on law enforcement personnel and paramilitary goons to protect their property. Now, they note that these latter-day Pinkertons would not be instruments of Statist oppression, but rather, are employees of private “defense firms”. But I guarantee that the truncheons they use on you will feel the same, regardless of who their boss is. In fact, there are fewer safeguards with paramilitaries, because, unlike municipal police forces, these are paid employees of the capitalists in question! Thus, if their boss wants them to shoot strikers, they’ll do it, or risk losing their employment! And you know what? This is exactly what happened during the golden age of laissez-faire capitalism, when the Pinkerton Detective Agency serviced industrialists across the United States.

Using false examples from distant pasts where morality was not the argument to attack a free market? :roll:

Nothing wrong with private defense people.
Further, the “anarcho” capitalists will still require a court system, and thus laws, to uphold property rights and contracts! These private judicial firms would offer the “best” justice to the clients who paid them the best! Some justice!

But other than the current "laws" those laws apply to everybody, not just to the people and the State is exempted from those same "laws".
Laissez-faire capitalists don’t particularly care what happens to people; despite their lofty declarations about liberty and freedom, their actions put the lie to them. They say, “nobody FORCES you to work for somebody else”, but if you don’t have your own capital reserve (like most of us), what choice do you have? You must work or starve!

You said yourself you have to work to survive. And now what, working is bad? And the only other choice is starving? :roll:
Owners Uber Alles

Nothing humanistic about this ideology! In fact, laissez-faire capitalism has much more in common with fascism, the old enemy of anarchism, than with democracy!

Strawman # 6,000,000... :roll:

Democracy? What, that fake statist "system" we have today? :iitm:
The simplest exploration of the workplace reveals this reality: who has the final say in the workplace...the average worker, or the owner? The owner, of course. That’s why they’re called “the Boss”. It’s their property, the laissez-faire capitalists say, so they have the authority. Pure, top-down, fascistic decision-making in action.

The evil business owner, painted with the Dickens pencils to function as a blueprint for capitalism... Most businesses don't have those grim owners, there's a very good friendly relationship between the owners (who are workers too) and "the average worker".
Now, certainly, workplaces make a grand show of including workers in the decision-making process, but you’ll find that this involvement focuses on ratifying and executing decisions the owners have already made,instead of the owners seeking the advice and experience of the people who actually DO THE WORK within the company! Ultimately, where a given property is concerned, the owners have the final authority. Anarchists rightly see this as deeply authoritarian; “anarcho” capitalists pretend otherwise, and advise you to start your own company, or become self-employed (as if these were effective remedies)!

Very effective. If you feel uncomfortable I suggest you change that. The socialist false idea that business owners don't work is painted again and again...
Anarchism is about challenging unjust authority

I call it "unmerited" but yes.
(and any authority wrought by coercion is unjust);

Exactly.
capitalism is about making a profit from the labor of others.

Labor of others? The owner has to work too. If you as an employee don't like the profit the owner makes compared to you, you negotiate a higher share for yourself or just quit that job, what's the fucking problem?
The two have nothing in common! The “anarchs”, “anarcho” capitalists, laissez-faire capitalists, and Libertarians of this world don’t object to rulers, except when rulers cut into their profits! This makes them not anarchistic at all, but manifestly bourgeois in character, ethic, and temperament. “Anarcho” capitalism is a reactionary credo with more in common with postindustrial feudalism and outright fascism than anything remotely anarchistic, for the aforementioned reasons.

No, because there is no force involved in a business owner-employee relationship. So there is no "ruler". There is someone with capital and business and someone who wants to work, make profit for himself and they share common goals.

What does this type want to do? Use force to remove business owners? Then how the hell can he call himself an anarchist, wanting to initiate force against another Ape? :roll:

Peter Joseph and his impossible Zeitgeist crypto-commi "society".

This "Resource-Based" Economy bullshit is a fairytale. With an absence of money (the tool to define value) an apple becomes just as much worth as a goodie which has a lot of work and technology in it. Just give away free iPads, to anyone! The supply of resources is endless. No, it's not, you false prophet of false freedom. Every resource is limited and desire is endless. Money (in whatever form) is the measure to deal with that.

Those people live in fairytales. Just give away 100,000 iPads, we can just snap our fingers and mine 300 kilos of osmium, no problem! :roll: :sadno:
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Capitalism and the Jews 15 Apr 2016 21:02 #8

  • annabelle
  • annabelle's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 1955
  • Likes received: 1432
The term anarcho-capitalist is just as much of an oxymoron as the term anarcho-communist :larf: you are either an anarchist or a capitalist, you can't be both at the same time. :sadno:

Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Flare

Capitalism and the Jews 15 Apr 2016 21:21 #9

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7045
  • Likes received: 1539
annabelle wrote:
The term anarcho-capitalist is just as much of an oxymoron as the term anarcho-communist :larf: you are either an anarchist or a capitalist, you can't be both at the same time. :sadno:

Not at all. Communism means active intervention using force in a by nature free market and thus people. So that can never be anarchist.

Capitalism, the free market, is having no interventions using force, so that is perfectly aligned with anarchism.

I suggest you address arguments, instead of videospamming deranged JewTube Trolls. :yerright:
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Capitalism and the Jews 16 Apr 2016 02:52 #10

  • annabelle
  • annabelle's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 1955
  • Likes received: 1432
Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?

In a word, no. While "anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho" or by calling themselves "anarchists" their ideas are distinctly at odds with those associated with anarchism. As a result, any claims that their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist tradition or movement are false.

"Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.

Part of the problem is that Marxists, like many academics, also tend to assert that anarchists are simply against the state. It is significant that both Marxists and "anarcho"-capitalists tend to define anarchism as purely opposition to government. This is no co-incidence, as both seek to exclude anarchism from its place.

This makes perfect sense from the Marxist perspective as it allows them to present their ideology as the only serious anti-capitalist one around (not to mention associating anarchism with "anarcho"-capitalism is an excellent way of discrediting our ideas in the wider radical movement). It should go without saying that this is an obvious and serious misrepresentation of the anarchist position as even a superficial glance at anarchist theory and history shows that no anarchist limited their critique of society simply at the state.

So while academics and Marxists seem aware of the anarchist opposition to the state, they usually fail to grasp the anarchist critique applies to all other authoritarian social institutions and how it fits into the overall anarchist analysis and struggle. They seem to think the anarchist condemnation of capitalist private property, patriarchy and so forth are somehow superfluous additions rather than a logical position which reflects the core of anarchism:

"Critics have sometimes contended that anarchist thought, and classical anarchist theory in particular, has emphasised opposition to the state to the point of neglecting the real hegemony of economic power. This interpretation arises, perhaps, from a simplistic and overdrawn distinction between the anarchist focus on political domination and the Marxist focus on economic exploitation . . . there is abundant evidence against such a thesis throughout the history of anarchist thought." [John P. Clark and Camille Martin, Anarchy, Geography, Modernity, p. 95]

So Reclus simply stated the obvious when he wrote that "the anti-authoritarian critique to which the state is subjected applies equally to all social institutions".

So while anarchism obviously opposes the state, "sophisticated and developed anarchist theory proceeds further. It does not stop with a criticism of political organisation, but goes on to investigate the authoritarian nature of economic inequality and private property, hierarchical economic structures, traditional education, the patriarchal family and class discrimination, to mention just a few of the more important topics." For the "essence of anarchism is, after all, not the theoretical opposition to the state, but the practical and theoretical struggle against domination." [John Clark, The Anarchist Moment, p. 128 and p. 70]

This is also the case with individualist anarchists whose defence of certain forms of property did stop them criticising key aspects of capitalist property rights. Anarchists like Tucker and Spooner "agreed with the proposition that property was legitimate only insofar as it embraced no more than the total product of individual labour." ["Anarchism", Contemporary Political Ideologies, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright (eds.), p. 132] This is acknowledged by the likes of Rothbard who had to explicitly point how that his position on such subjects was fundamentally different (i.e., at odds) with individualist anarchism.

As such, it would be fair to say that most "anarcho"-capitalists are capitalists first and foremost. If aspects of anarchism do not fit with some element of capitalism, they will reject that element of anarchism rather than question capitalism (Rothbard's selective appropriation of the individualist anarchist tradition is the most obvious example of this). This means that right-"libertarians" attach the "anarcho" prefix to their ideology because they believe that being against government intervention is equivalent to being an anarchist (which flows into their use of the dictionary definition of anarchism). That they ignore the bulk of the anarchist tradition should prove that there is hardly anything anarchistic about them at all. They are not against authority, hierarchy or the state -- they simply want to privatise them.

Ironically, this limited definition of "anarchism" ensures that "anarcho"-capitalism is inherently self-refuting. This can be seen from leading "anarcho"-capitalist Murray Rothbard. He thundered against the evil of the state, arguing that it "arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area." In and of itself, this definition is unremarkable. That a few people (an elite of rulers) claim the right to rule others must be part of any sensible definition of the state or government.

However, the problems begin for Rothbard when he notes that "[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc." [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 170 and p. 173] The logical contradiction in this position should be obvious, but not to Rothbard. It shows the power of ideology, the ability of mere words (the expression "private property") to turn the bad ("ultimate decision-making power over a given area") into the good ("ultimate decision-making power over a given area").

Now, this contradiction can be solved in only one way -- the users of the "given area" are also its owners. In other words, a system of possession (or "occupancy and use") as favoured by anarchists. However, Rothbard is a capitalist and supports private property, non-labour income, wage labour, capitalists and landlords. This means that he supports a divergence between ownership and use and this means that this "ultimate decision-making power" extends to those who use, but do not own, such property (i.e. tenants and workers). The statist nature of private property is clearly indicated by Rothbard's words -- the property owner in an "anarcho"-capitalist society possesses the "ultimate decision-making power" over a given area, which is also what the state has currently. Rothbard has, ironically, proved by his own definition that "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist.

Thus the proprietor has power/authority over his tenants and can decree what they can and cannot do, excluding anyone whom they consider as being subversive (in the tenants' own interests, of course). In other words, the autocratic powers of the boss are extended into all aspects of society -- all under the mask of advocating liberty. Sadly, the preservation of property rights destroys liberty for the many (Hoppe states clearly that for the "anarcho"-capitalist the "natural outcome of the voluntary transactions between various private property owners is decidedly non-egalitarian, hierarchical and elitist." ["The Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy and the Idea of a Natural Order," Op. Cit., p. 118]).

Unsurprisingly, Chomsky argued that right-wing "libertarianism" has "no objection to tyranny as long as it is private tyranny." In fact it (like other contemporary ideologies) "reduce to advocacy of one or another form of illegitimate authority, quite often real tyranny." [Chomsky on Anarchism, p. 235 and p. 181] As such, it is hard not to conclude that "anarcho"-capitalism is little more than a play with words. It is not anarchism but a cleverly designed and worded surrogate for elitist, autocratic conservatism. Nor is too difficult to conclude that genuine anarchists and libertarians (of all types) would not be tolerated in this so-called "libertarian social order."

Some "anarcho"-capitalists do seem dimly aware of this glaringly obvious contradiction. Rothbard, for example, does present an argument which could be used to solve it, but he utterly fails. He simply ignores the crux of the matter, that capitalism is based on hierarchy and, therefore, cannot be anarchist. He does this by arguing that the hierarchy associated with capitalism is fine as long as the private property that produced it was acquired in a "just" manner. Yet in so doing he yet again draws attention to the identical authority structures and social relationships of the state and property. As he puts it:

"If the State may be said to properly own its territory, then it is proper for it to make rules for everyone who presumes to live in that area. It can legitimately seize or control private property because there is no private property in its area, because it really owns the entire land surface. So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property." [Op. Cit., p. 170]

Obviously Rothbard argues that the state does not "justly" own its territory. He asserts that "our homesteading theory" of the creation of private property "suffices to demolish any such pretensions by the State apparatus" and so the problem with the state is that it "claims and exercises a compulsory monopoly of defence and ultimate decision-making over an area larger than an individual's justly-acquired property." [Op. Cit., p. 171 and p. 173] There are four fundamental problems with his argument.

First, it assumes his "homesteading theory" is a robust and libertarian theory, but neither is the case (see section F.4.1).

Second, it ignores the history of capitalism. Given that the current distribution of property is just as much the result of violence and coercion as the state, his argument is seriously flawed. It amounts to little more than an "immaculate conception of property" unrelated to reality.

Third, even if we ignore these issues and assume that private property could be and was legitimately produced by the means Rothbard assumes, it does not justify the hierarchy associated with it as current and future generations of humanity have, effectively, been excommunicated from liberty by previous ones.

If, as Rothbard argues, property is a natural right and the basis of liberty then why should the many be excluded from their birthright by a minority? In other words, Rothbard denies that liberty should be universal. He chooses property over liberty while anarchists choose liberty over property. Fourthly, it implies that the fundamental problem with the state is not, as anarchists have continually stressed, its hierarchical and authoritarian nature but rather the fact that it does not justly own the territory it claims to rule.

Even worse, the possibility that private property can result in more violations of individual freedom (at least for non-proprietors ) than the state of its citizens was implicitly acknowledged by Rothbard. He uses as a hypothetical example a country whose King is threatened by a rising "libertarian" movement. The King responses by "employ[ing] a cunning stratagem," namely he "proclaims his government to be dissolved, but just before doing so he arbitrarily parcels out the entire land area of his kingdom to the 'ownership' of himself and his relatives." Rather than taxes, his subjects now pay rent and he can "regulate the lives of all the people who presume to live on" his property as he sees fit. Rothbard then asks:

"Now what should be the reply of the libertarian rebels to this pert challenge? If they are consistent utilitarians, they must bow to this subterfuge, and resign themselves to living under a regime no less despotic than the one they had been battling for so long. Perhaps, indeed, more despotic, for now the king and his relatives can claim for themselves the libertarians' very principle of the absolute right of private property, an absoluteness which they might not have dared to claim before." [Op. Cit., p. 54]

It should go without saying that Rothbard argues that we should reject this "cunning stratagem" as a con as the new distribution of property would not be the result of "just" means. However, he failed to note how his argument undermines his own claims that capitalism can be libertarian. As he himself argues, not only does the property owner have the same monopoly of power over a given area as the state, it is more despotic as it is based on the "absolute right of private property"! And remember, Rothbard is arguing in favour of "anarcho"-capitalism ("if you have unbridled capitalism, you will have all kinds of authority: you will have extreme authority." [Chomsky, Understanding Power, p. 200]).

The fundamental problem is that Rothbard's ideology blinds him to the obvious, namely that the state and private property produce identical social relationships (ironically, he opines the theory that the state owns its territory "makes the State, as well as the King in the Middle Ages, a feudal overlord, who at least theoretically owned all the land in his domain" without noticing that this makes the capitalist or landlord a King and a feudal overlord within "anarcho"-capitalism. [Op. Cit., p. 171]).

One group of Chinese anarchists pointed out the obvious in 1914. As anarchism "takes opposition to authority as its essential principle," anarchists aim to "sweep away all the evil systems of present society which have an authoritarian nature" and so "our ideal society" would be "without landlords, capitalists, leaders, officials, representatives or heads of families." [quoted by Arif Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, p. 131] Only this, the elimination of all forms of hierarchy (political, economic and social) would achieve genuine anarchism, a society without authority (an-archy). In practice, private property is a major source of oppression and authoritarianism within society -- there is little or no freedom subject to a landlord or within capitalist production.

In stark contrast to anarchists, "anarcho"-capitalists have no problem with landlords and factory fascism (i.e. wage labour), a position which seems highly illogical for a theory calling itself libertarian. If it were truly libertarian, it would oppose all forms of domination, not just statism ("Those who reject authoritarianism will require nobody' permission to breathe. The libertarian . . . is not grateful to get permission to reside anywhere on his own planet and denies the right of any one to screen off bits of it for their own use or rule." [Stuart Christie and Albert Meltzer, Floodgates of Anarchy, p. 31]).

This illogical and self-contradictory position flows from the "anarcho"-capitalist definition of freedom as the absence of coercion and will be discussed in section F.2 in more detail. The ironic thing is that "anarcho"-capitalists implicitly prove the anarchist critique of their own ideology.

Of course, the "anarcho"-capitalist has another means to avoid the obvious, namely the assertion that the market will limit the abuses of the property owners. If workers do not like their ruler then they can seek another. Thus capitalist hierarchy is fine as workers and tenants "consent" to it. While the logic is obviously the same, it is doubtful that an "anarcho"-capitalist would support the state just because its subjects can leave and join another one. As such, this does not address the core issue -- the authoritarian nature of capitalist property (see section A.2.14). Moreover, this argument completely ignores the reality of economic and social power. Thus the "consent" argument fails because it ignores the social circumstances of capitalism which limit the choice of the many.

Anarchists have long argued that, as a class, workers have little choice but to "consent" to capitalist hierarchy. The alternative is either dire poverty or starvation. "Anarcho"-capitalists dismiss such claims by denying that there is such a thing as economic power. Rather, it is simply freedom of contract. Anarchists consider such claims as a joke.

To show why, we need only quote (yet again) Rothbard on the abolition of slavery and serfdom in the 19th century. He argued, correctly, that the "bodies of the oppressed were freed, but the property which they had worked and eminently deserved to own, remained in the hands of their former oppressors. With economic power thus remaining in their hands, the former lords soon found themselves virtual masters once more of what were now free tenants or farm labourers. The serfs and slaves had tasted freedom, but had been cruelly derived of it's fruits"

To say the least, anarchists fail to see the logic in this position. Contrast this with the standard "anarcho"-capitalist claim that if market forces ("voluntary exchanges") result in the creation of "tenants or farm labourers" then they are free. Yet labourers dispossessed by market forces are in exactly the same social and economic situation as the ex-serfs and ex-slaves. If the latter do not have the fruits of freedom, neither do the former.

Rothbard sees the obvious "economic power" in the latter case, but denies it in the former (ironically, Rothbard dismissed economic power under capitalism in the same work. [Op. Cit., pp. 221-2]). It is only Rothbard's ideology that stops him from drawing the obvious conclusion -- identical economic conditions produce identical social relationships and so capitalism is marked by "economic power" and "virtual masters." The only solution is for "anarcho"-capitalist to simply say that the ex-serfs and ex-slaves were actually free to choose and, consequently, Rothbard was wrong. It might be inhuman, but at least it would be consistent!

Rothbard's perspective is alien to anarchism. For example, as individualist anarchist William Bailie noted, under capitalism there is a class system marked by "a dependent industrial class of wage-workers" and "a privileged class of wealth-monopolisers, each becoming more and more distinct from the other as capitalism advances." This has turned property into "a social power, an economic force destructive of rights, a fertile source of injustice, a means of enslaving the dispossessed."

He concluded: "Under this system equal liberty cannot obtain." Bailie notes that the modern "industrial world under capitalistic conditions" have "arisen under the regime of status" (and so "law-made privileges") however, it seems unlikely that he would have concluded that such a class system would be fine if it had developed naturally or the current state was abolished while leaving that class structure intact. [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 121] As we discuss in section G.4, Individualist Anarchists like Tucker and Yarrows ended up recognising that even the freest competition had become powerless against the enormous concentrations of wealth associated with capitalism.

Therefore anarchists recognise that "free exchange" or "consent" in unequal circumstances will reduce freedom as well as increasing inequality between individuals and classes. As we discuss in section F.3, inequality will produce social relationships which are based on hierarchy and domination, not freedom. As Noam Chomsky put it:

"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of 'free contract' between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else." [Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, interview with Tom Lane, December 23, 1996]

Clearly, then, by its own arguments "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist.

"The emphasis [right-wing] libertarians place on the opposition of liberty and political power tends to obscure the role of authority in their worldview . . . the authority exercised in private relationships, however -- in the relationship between employer and employee, for instance -- meets with no objection. . . . [This] reveals a curious insensitivity to the use of private authority as a means of social control. Comparing public and private authority, we might well ask of the [right-wing] libertarians: When the price of exercising one's freedom is terribly high, what practical difference is there between the commands of the state and those issued by one's employer? . . . Though admittedly the circumstances are not identical, telling disgruntled empowers that they are always free to leave their jobs seems no different in principle from telling political dissidents that they are free to emigrate." [Liberalism at Wit's End, pp. 45-46]

The similarities between capitalism and statism are clear -- and so why "anarcho"-capitalism cannot be anarchist. To reject the authority (the "ultimate decision-making power") of the state and embrace that of the property owner indicates not only a highly illogical stance but one at odds with the basic principles of anarchism.

In addition, we must note that such inequalities in power and wealth will need "defending" from those subject to them ("anarcho"-capitalists recognise the need for private police and courts to defend property from theft -- and, anarchists add, to defend the theft and despotism associated with property!). Due to its support of private property (and thus authority), "anarcho"-capitalism ends up retaining a state in its "anarchy": namely a private state whose existence its proponents attempt to deny simply by refusing to call it a state, like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand.

As one anarchist so rightly put it, "anarcho"-capitalists "simply replaced the state with private security firms, and can hardly be described as anarchists as the term is normally understood." [Brian Morris, "Global Anti-Capitalism", pp. 170-6, Anarchist Studies, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 175] As we discuss more fully in section F.6 this is why "anarcho"-capitalism is better described as "private state" capitalism as there would be a functional equivalent of the state and it would be just as skewed in favour of the propertied elite as the existing one (if not more so). As Albert Meltzer put it:

"Common sense shows that any capitalist society might dispense with a 'State' . . . but it could not dispense with organised government, or a privatised form of it, if there were people amassing money and others working to amass it for them. The philosophy of 'anarcho-capitalism' dreamed up by the 'libertarian' New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper. It is a lie . . . Patently unbridled capitalism . . . needs some force at its disposal to maintain class privileges, either from the State itself or from private armies. What they believe in is in fact a limited State -- that is, one in which the State has one function, to protect the ruling class, does not interfere with exploitation, and comes as cheap as possible for the ruling class. The idea also serves another purpose . . . a moral justification for bourgeois consciences in avoiding taxes without feeling guilty about it." [Anarchism: Arguments For and Against, p. 50]

For anarchists, this need of capitalism for some kind of state is unsurprising. For "Anarchy without socialism seems equally as impossible to us [as socialism without anarchy], for in such a case it could not be other than the domination of the strongest, and would therefore set in motion right away the organisation and consolidation of this domination; that is to the constitution of government." [Errico Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 148] Because of this, the "anarcho"-capitalist rejection of the anarchist critique of capitalism and our arguments on the need for equality, they cannot be considered anarchists or part of the anarchist tradition. To anarchists it seems bizarre that "anarcho"-capitalists want to get rid of the state but maintain the system it helped create and its function as a defender of the capitalist class's property and property rights. In other words, to reduce the state purely to its function as (to use Malatesta's apt word) the gendarme of the capitalist class is not an anarchist goal.

As "anarcho"-capitalism does not explicitly (or implicitly, for that matter) call for economic arrangements that will end wage labour and usury it cannot be considered anarchist or part of the anarchist tradition.

Their support for "free market" capitalism ignores the impact of wealth and power on the nature and outcome of individual decisions within the market (see sections F.2 and F.3 for further discussion). Furthermore, any such system of (economic and social) power will require extensive force to maintain it and the "anarcho"-capitalist system of competing "defence firms" will simply be a new state, enforcing capitalist power, property rights and law. Thus the "anarcho"-capitalist and the anarchist have different starting positions and opposite ends in mind.

Their claims to being anarchists are bogus simply because they reject so much of the anarchist tradition as to make what little they do pay lip-service to non-anarchist in theory and practice. Little wonder Peter Marshall said that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice." As such, "anarcho"-capitalists, "even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists." (Demanding the Impossible p565)

www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF1#sthash.oIAGPsIG.dpuf
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Capitalism and the Jews 16 Apr 2016 03:00 #11

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7045
  • Likes received: 1539
anarchism is a political theory.

Wrong. Anarchism is a philosophy, so based on principles. Haven't read the rest, this was a clear misconception already.

Any Homo sapiens is born free and should be able to trade freely (= capitalism) with other Homo sapiens.
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Capitalism and the Jews 16 Apr 2016 03:34 #12

  • Flare
  • Flare's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 13706
  • Likes received: 5441
Gaia wrote:
anarchism is a political theory.

Wrong. Anarchism is a philosophy, so based on principles. Haven't read the rest, this was a clear misconception already.

Any Homo sapiens is born free and should be able to trade freely (= capitalism) with other Homo sapiens.

People can only trade freely if the state abolishes usury.
So we have come together on this day to prove symbolically that we are more than a collection of individuals striving one against another, that none of us is too proud, none of us too high, none is too rich, and none too poor, to stand together before the face of the Lord and of the world in this indissoluble, sworn community. And this united nation, we have need of it.

- Adolf Hitler, in Berlin, 01 May 1935
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Capitalism and the Jews 16 Apr 2016 04:37 #13

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7045
  • Likes received: 1539
Flare wrote:
Gaia wrote:
anarchism is a political theory.

Wrong. Anarchism is a philosophy, so based on principles. Haven't read the rest, this was a clear misconception already.

Any Homo sapiens is born free and should be able to trade freely (= capitalism) with other Homo sapiens.

People can only trade freely if the state...

:facepalm:
abolishes usury.

It's their main driver. What do you think, the mafia is suddenly giving up crime? :larf:
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Last Edit: 16 Apr 2016 04:38 by Gaia.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Capitalism and the Jews 16 Apr 2016 14:06 #14

  • annabelle
  • annabelle's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 1955
  • Likes received: 1432
you really think there would be no usery under capitalism if the state/government were abolished? :larf: is the mafia going to disappear with the abolition of the state? with 'private' armies/contractors/thugs being hired en masse and a privately run 'law' system in replacement of the 'state' court judiciary system?

"anarcho-capitalists argue, the Mafia can only thrive in the artificial market niche created by the prohibition of alcohol, drugs, prostitution, gambling, and other victimless crimes" what dream world are they living in? :facepalm:

Oh wait.... an objective legal code could be developed by free-market judges... there would be no bias would there be on the side of those who have gained the most riches within the so-called 'free market' economy, no room for corruption. :larf:

It is precisely the inequality, exploitation, and tyranny of modern capitalism that is objected to, and rather than abolishing it the anarcho-capitalist proposes to unleash its worst features and destroy its safety net. The most vulnerable, the disabled, the ill, those in chronic pain, the mentally ill, many of the elderly etc would be under the mercy of having their needs met through the whims of others who may or may not decide to be voluntarily charitable under a government abolished privately run/owned competitive market ideology. Like much of the mass public hasn't already been brainwashed/indoctrinated into seeing many of those who can't or can no longer contribute to the capitalist market as parasites. Healthcare/emergency services available to all regardless of income? abolished.

"People calling themselves “anarcho-capitalists” usually want to define “capitalism” as the same thing as a free market, and “socialism” as state intervention against such. But what then is a free market? If you mean simply all voluntary transactions that occur without state interference, then it’s a circular and redundant definition."

c4ss.org/content/4043
Let us imagine that an anarcho-capitalist society does manage to form, Ancapistan, if we will. Next to Ancapistan is a statist capitalist nation, let us call it Aynrandia. Well, the Aynrandians decide “hmm, Ancapistan lacks a state to protect its citizens. We should take over and give them one, for their own good of course.” At this point the billionaires in Ancapistan must either capitulate, welcome the Aynrandians, and Ancapistan is no more, or they must raise a private army to repel the Aynrandians. Not only will the second option be ridiculously expensive, but a lot of property will get destroyed if the Aynrandians decide to engage in modern total warfare. Ahh, but what about all the middle class people in Ancapistan; won’t they form a militia to defend themselves? Well yes, but they won’t form a militia to defend a bunch of billionaires’ property.

The anarcho-capitalists often have a nonsensical rosy picture of the boss-worker relationship that has no basis in reality. Almost no one wakes up and goes in to work thinking “thank the heavens for my wonderful boss, who was kind enough to employ a loser like me”. When external invasion arrives, the middle classes will defend themselves and their own property. But they’re not going to risk their lives for businesses without getting a piece of the action.

So, due to the rising cost of protecting property, there comes a threshold level, where accumulating more capital becomes economically inefficient, simply in terms of guarding the property. Police and military protection is the biggest subsidy that the State gives to the rich. In some sense the Objectivists are correct that capitalism requires a government to protect private property.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Capitalism and the Jews 18 Apr 2016 10:31 #15

  • annabelle
  • annabelle's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 1955
  • Likes received: 1432
Jewish banishment and The “City” of London

The following is a statement made by Tony Benn in the Houses of Parliament not too many years ago (and it matters not when such was said anyhow). This is very very simple: The British people have no idea who this “Crown” is. It acts outside of any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever. As such, it acts outwith the law yet decides what this thing called “Law” is!

The Crown prosecutes. Our Armed Forces fight and kill and destroy nations on its say so. Our Police and Forces take an oath to this “thing” called “the Crown”. They believe it to be “Her Majesty” the monarch without understanding at all that the monarchy is NOT a person or the Queen and her family. The Monarchy is a Constitutional Office. When it comes to the profit of the British Queen and her family from the “Crown Estate”, it is, in actual fact, deceptive criminal theft by the “reigning monarch” (like a reigning CEO of a corporation stealing the wealth of the company yet, the person in the office of CEO does not have the legal or lawful entitlement to take the wealth of the company because it is the Corporation in total as a legal person which owns the wealth and NOT the CEO). This is PRECISELY the same when we look at this “Constitutional Monarch” in office profiting no longer from a Civil List but from various sources of the country’s wealth.

Our Armed Forces, Police and judiciary are immensely ignorant but do what they are told otherwise they will not eat. They do as the “Crown” bids simply because, if they question it, then their wealth and the wealth of their family disappears. The Policeman with integrity would be sacked and the soldier fighting for his dearest “Crown” would find himself at the mercy of “friendly fire”.

So, what were those words of Tony Benn which crystallises the seriousness of this issue?

Here they are:

“I turn to the matter of lifelong confidentiality to the Crown, which presumably should have bound Peter Wright. Who is the Crown? Did the Queen tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Prime Minister? Obviously not. Did the Prime Minister tell Peter Wright to destroy himself? Obviously not. Did the Home Secretary tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Government? Obviously not.The Crown is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations—a state within the state—that the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion. The Crown is a term used to cover a concrete emplacement surrounded by barbed wire that the Home Secretary thinks needs fresh protection. It is not that he intends it to be subject to public scrutiny.”

Anyone thinking very logically and simply would simply ask one question:

WHY HAVE JEWS BEEN BANISHED FROM SOME MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND CULTURES OVER CENTURIES? BY PEOPLES WHO HAVE NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSPIRE AGAINST THEM BECAUSE OF VAST DISTANCES BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES WHO HAVE BANISHED THEM. YET ALL OF THESE PEOPLES HAVE, AT DIFFERENT TIMES THROUGHOUT HISTORY, FELT IT NECESSARY TO DO JUST THAT. FOR NO REASON? ALL OF THESE CULTURES HAVE JUST HAD SOME RACIAL HATRED OF JEWS? THERE’S NO LOGIC IN IT. THE ONLY COMMON DENOMINATOR WHICH PERMEATES THROUGHOUT THESE BANISHMENTS IS THAT OF MONEY AND USURY.

Henk Ruyssenaars’ article on July 10th 2006 drew attention to the book “Descent into Slavery” by Des Griffin in which the real meaning of the term “City of London” is explained. The following is an excerpt from that article.

“To the majority of people the words “Crown” and “City” in reference to London refer to the queen or the capital of England.

This is not the truth. The “City” is in fact a privately owned Corporation – or Sovereign State – occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile ‘Greater London’ area. The population of ‘The City’ is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of ‘Greater London’ (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million.

“The Crown” is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or ‘The City.’ ‘The City’ is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state.

“The City”, which is often called “the wealthiest square mile on earth,” is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britain’s great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd’s of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds.

The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City. As Aubrey Menen says in “London”, Time-Life, 1976, p. 16:

“The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much.”
It certainly is and certainly does!

When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State visits “the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms.”

The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.

The symbolism is clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject.





The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These ‘fronts’ go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D’Israeli wrote:

“So you see… the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”
(Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).

This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen’s book:



“The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget. Both are advised by the permanenet officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will back-fire, it is of no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one ambassador said: “Diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that. The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister.”

Woe betide him if he does not listen. The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden… launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor’s banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboards.”

The British government is the bond slave of the “invisible and inaudible” force centred in the City. The City calls the tune. The “visible and audible leaders” are mere puppets who dance to that tune on command. They have no power. They have no authority. In spite of the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite.

It is important to recognise the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other the British Empire.

The colonial possessions that were white were under the sovereign – i.e. under the authority of the British government. Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law. These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the inhabitants of the Britsh Empire.

All the other parts of the British Empire – nations like India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong and Gibraltar were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them.

As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown’s supremacy in these areas.

The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces. This wasn’t British commerce and British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and those members of the aristocracy who were part of the “City” machine accumulated vast fortunes .

About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that :

….”financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrusts… Loans to foreign countries are organised and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation’s welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows rich…”
In “Empire of the City” E. C. Knuth said:

” This national amnd mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today we see through a glass darkly: for there is so much which it would not be in the public interest to divulge.”…

The battle for power and riches is an ancient one, but any attempt to make sense of the present world situation where the bulk of humanity is being herded like sheep into a corral without some knowledge of history is a difficult if not impossible task.

At present names have been replaced by groups, capitalists, republicans, democrats, terrorists, corporations, NATO, UNO, NAFTA, EMI, ECB, ASEAN. Names that are spewed out like confetti in an endless list of anonymity.

In spite of modern technology the figures in the background remain blurred. Mention the word “Jew” or “Conspiracy” and everyone with few exceptions will turn away. Why? Fear? Of what? What is the magic talisman which makes the mention of these co-religionists a no-go area? Is it because they have infiltrated every aspect of human activity? Is it they who are pulling the strings which are leading the world on its downward slope?

The Jew has been mistrusted since way back. But what is apparent now is that any attempt to offer an answer to the question is clamped down upon. What does that indicate? Above all it indicates that these shadowy figures fear more than anything else the truth.

Professor Jesse H. Holmes, writing in, “The American Hebrew,” expressed the following similar sentiments:

“It can hardly be an accident that antagonism directed against the Jews is to be found pretty much everywhere in the world where Jews and non-Jews are associated. And as the Jews are the common element of the situation it would seem probable, on the face of it, that the cause will be found in them rather than in the widely varying groups which feel this antagonism.

In Europe and Russia alone, the Jews have been banished 47 times in the last 1,000 years: Mainz, 1012; France, 1182; Upper Bavaria, 1276; England, 1290; France, 1306; France, 1322; Saxony, 1349; Hungary, 1360; Belgium, 1370; Slovakia, 1380; France, 1394; Austria, 1420; Lyons, 1420; Cologne, 1424; Mainz, 1438; Augsburg, 1438; Upper Bavaria, 1442; Netherlands, 1444; Brandenburg, 1446; Mainz, 1462; Lithuania, 1495; Portugal, 1496; Naples, 1496; Navarre, 1498; Nuremberg, 1498; Brandenburg, 1510; Prussia, 1510; Genoa, 1515; Naples, 1533; Italy, 1540; Naples, 1541; Prague, 1541; Genoa, 1550; Bavaria, 1551; Prague, 1557; Papal States, 1569; Hungary, 1582; Hamburg, 1649; Vienna, 1669; Slovakia, 1744; Mainz, 1483; Warsaw, 1483; Spain, 1492; Italy, 1492; Moravia, 1744; Bohemia, 1744; Moscow, 1891.

(The above is excerpted from The Synagogue of Satan by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock.)

Of what were these people guilty to arouse such a reaction from so many diverse people?

Well, in England, it’s very interesting:

IT ALL STARTED with The Edict of Expulsion of 1290 AD.

The Jews would have us believe that their expulsion from England by Edward I (reigned 1272-1307) was due to their money lending endeavors. The real reason was due to the Jews’ crime of blood ritual murders.

The Orthodox Christian historian of the 5th Century, Socrates Scholasticus, in his Ecclesiastical History, 7:16, recounts an incident about Jews killing a Christian child:

— “At a place near Antioch in Syria, the Jews, in derision of the Cross and those who put their trust in the Crucified One, seized a Christian boy, and having bound him to a cross they made, began to sneer at him. In a little while becoming so transported with fury, they scourged the child until he died under their hands.” —

Here are a few examples which led to the English expulsion of the Jews in 1290 AD:

1144 A.D. Norwich: A twelve year-old boy was crucified and his side pierced at the Jewish Passover. His body was found in a sack hidden in a tree. A converted Jew to Christianity named Theobald of Cambridge informed the authorities that the Jews took blood every year from a Christian child because they thought that only by so doing could they ever return to Palestine. The boy has ever since been known as St. William.

1160 A.D. Gloucester: The body of a child named Harold was found in the river with the wounds of crucifixion.

1255 A.D. Lincoln: A boy named Hugh was tortured and crucified by the Jews. The boy’s mother found the body in a well on the premises of a Jew named Jopin. 18 Jews were hanged for the crime by King Henry III.

1290 A.D. Oxford: The Patent Roll 18 Of Edward I, 21st June 1290 contains an order for the Gaol delivery of a Jew named Isaac de Pulet for the murder and blood letting of a Christian boy. Only one month after this, King Edward I issued his decree expelling the Jews from England.
(See Sources #1 Below )

[As an addendum to the above, I feel it is necessary to clarify that, before the expulsion in 1290, there was the Statute of the Jewry in 1275, entirely based upon the moneylending and usury issue: www.heretical.com/british/jews1275.html

Now please understand that this is just pure factual history and the pieces fall where they fall.

– the readmission of Jewish usury into England by Oliver Cromwell during the 1640 – 1660 period and then the establishment of the Bank of England where one can see, William of Orange and his Queen, Mary became original investors – it is on Bank of England documents]


JEWISH BANKERS FROM AMSTERDAM led by the Jewish financier and army contractor of Cromwell’s New Model Army, Fernandez Carvajal and assisted by Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew), saw an opportunity to exploit in the civil unrest led by Oliver Cromwell in 1643.

A stable Christian society of ancient traditions binding the Monarchy, Church, State, nobles and people into one solemn bond was disrupted by Calvin’s Protestant uprising. The Jews of Amsterdam exploited this civil unrest and made their move. They contacted Oliver Cromwell in a series of letters:

Cromwell To Ebenezer Pratt of the Mulheim Synagogue in Amsterdam,
16th June 1647:
— “In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.” —

To Oliver Cromwell From Ebenezer Pratt, 12th July 1647:
— “Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.” —

Cromwell had carried out the orders of the Jewish financiers and beheaded, (yes, Cromwell and his Jewish sponsors must face Christ!), King Charles I on January 30 1649.

Beginning in 1655, Cromwell, through his alliance with the Jewish bankers of Amsterdam and specifically with Manasseh Ben Israel and his brother-in-law, David Abravanel Dormido, initiated the resettlement of the Jews in England.
(See Sources #2 Below )

JEWS GET THEIR CENTRAL BANK OF ENGLAND
WILLIAM STADHOLDER, a Dutch army careerist, was a handsome chap with money problems. The Jews saw another opportunity and through their influence arranged for William’s elevation to Captain General of the Dutch Forces. The next step up the ladder for William was his elevation by the Jews to the aristocratic title of William, Prince of Orange.

The Jews then arranged a meeting between William and Mary, the eldest daughter of the Duke of York. The Duke was only one place removed from becoming King of England. In 1677 Princess Mary of England married William Prince of Orange.

To place William upon the throne of England it was necessary to get rid of both Charles II and the Duke of York who was slated to become James II of the Stuarts. It is important to note that none of the Stuarts would grant charter for an English national bank. That is why murder, civil war, and religious conflicts plagued their reigns by the Jewish bankers.

In 1685, King Charles II died and the Duke of York became King James II of England. In 1688 the Jews ordered William Prince of Orange to land in England at Torbay. Because of an ongoing Campaign of L’Infamie against King James II contrived by the Jews, he abdicated and fled to France. William of Orange and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen of England.

The new King William III soon got England involved in costly wars against Catholic France which put England deep into debt. Here was the Jewish bankers’ chance to collect. So King William, under orders from the Elders of Zion in Amsterdam, persuaded the British Treasury to borrow 1.25 million pounds sterling from the Jewish bankers who had helped him to the throne.

Since the state’s debts had risen dramatically, the government had no choice but to accept. But there were conditions attached: The names of the lenders were to be kept secret and that they be granted a Charter to establish a Central Bank of England. Parliament accepted and the Jewish bankers sunk their tentacles into Great Britain.

ENTER THE ROTHSCHILDS

MAYER AMSCHEL BAUER OPENED a money lending business on Judenstrasse (Jew Street) in Frankfurt Germany in 1750 and changed his name to Rothschild. Mayer Rothschild had five sons.

The smartest of his sons, Nathan, was sent to London to establish a bank in 1806. Much of the initial funding for the new bank was tapped from the British East India Company which Mayer Rothschild had significant control of. Mayer Rothschild placed his other four sons in Frankfort, Paris, Naples, and Vienna.

In 1814, Nathanael Rothschild saw an opportunity in the Battle of Waterloo. Early in the battle, Napoleon appeared to be winning and the first military report to London communicated that fact. But the tide turned in favor of Wellington.

A courier of Nathan Rothschild brought the news to him in London on June 20. This was 24 hours before Wellington’s courier arrived in London with the news of Wellington’s victory. Seeing this fortuitous event, Nathan Rothschild began spreading the rumor that Britain was defeated.

With everyone believing that Wellington was defeated, Nathan Rothschild began to sell all of his stock on the English Stock Market. Everyone panicked and also began selling causing stocks to plummet to practically nothing. At the last minute, Nathan Rothschild began buying up the stocks at rock-bottom prices.

This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy – now the financial centre of the world and forced England to set up a revamped Bank of England with Nathan Rothschild in control.

A PRIVATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION exists today in England known as “The City.” It is also known as The Jewish Vatican located in the heart of Greater London.



A Committee of 12 men rule The Jewish Vatican. They are known as “The Crown.” The City and its rulers, The Crown, are not subject to the Parliament. They are a Sovereign State within a State.

The City is the financial hub of the world. It is here that the Rothschilds have their base of operations and their centrality of control:

* The Central Bank of England (controlled by the Rothschilds) is located in The City.
* All major British banks have their main offices in The City.
* 385 foreign banks are located in The City.
* 70 banks from the United States are located in The City.



The London Stock Exchange is located in The City.

* Lloyd’s of London is located in The City.
* The Baltic Exchange (shipping contracts) is located in The City.
* Fleet Street (newspapers & publishing) is located in The City.
* The London Metal Exchange is located in The City.
* The London Commodity Exchange (trading rubber, wool, sugar, coffee) is located in The City.

Every year a Lord Mayor is elected as monarch of The City. The British Parliament does not make a move without consulting the Lord Mayor of The City. For here in the heart of London are grouped together Britain’s financial institutions dominated by the Rothschild-controlled Central Bank of England.

The Rothschilds have traditionally chosen the Lord Mayor since 1820. Who is the present day Lord Mayor of The City? Only the Rothschilds’ know for sure…

UPDATE George Monbiot in the Guardian Newspaper. Although he just doesn’t go quite far enough into the history and the connectivity. Mainstream media now supporting much of the above regarding the “above the law” nature of the City of London. I rest my case your honour!

The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest

Working beyond the authority of parliament, the Corporation of London undermines all attempts to curb the excesses of finance.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval

earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/jewish-banishment-the-city-of-london/

Last Edit: 18 Apr 2016 10:36 by annabelle.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Exorcist

Capitalism and the Jews 18 Apr 2016 10:39 #16

  • ragnarok
  • ragnarok's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7808
  • Likes received: 714
To consider "the jews" as some kind of hive-mind group totally devoted to one cause only is to fall into the black and white thinking that is promoted by all humans who desire to rule over others.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: bd

Capitalism and the Jews 30 Apr 2016 20:38 #17

  • PFIZIPFEI
  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20433
  • Likes received: 7960
ragnarok wrote:
To consider "the jews" as some kind of hive-mind group totally devoted to one cause only is to fall into the black and white thinking that is promoted by all humans who desire to rule over others.


Do you ever read what you are posting? :facepalm:


:chuckle:
"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
My Zone by PFIZIPFEI
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Capitalism and the Jews 18 Oct 2016 22:52 #18

  • PFIZIPFEI
  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20433
  • Likes received: 7960

Mammon. Dedicated to his Worshippers.





en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon_%28painting%29


... crushing everything pure, innocent, beautiful, decent, trusting, honest ...

as long as the majority tolerates this degenerate, unnatural, anti social, destructive behaviour.


.
"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
My Zone by PFIZIPFEI
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Capitalism and the Jews 22 Oct 2016 18:45 #19

  • bd
  • bd's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • bikerdruid
  • Posts: 3658
  • Likes received: 471
Make up your mind ... Jews are either pushing capitalism or communism ...
IT CAN'T BE BOTH.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Capitalism and the Jews 28 Oct 2016 03:14 #20

  • bd
  • bd's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • bikerdruid
  • Posts: 3658
  • Likes received: 471
Let's try this again, shall we?
How can Jews be pushing both capitalism and communism?
The two are diametrically opposed.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2019 - May 2020, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 270 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 100 - Raised
( £ 80 GBP )
donation thermometer
29%
Updated
31st May 2019

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.