PART 2 Back To The Future Or Actually The Future Is Exactly What It Used To Be Or Neo Feudalism Or Now Listen You Queer, Stop Calling Me A Crypto Nazi Or I’ll Sock You In The Goddamn Face!


The general political and economic history we are taught focuses on forms of society over the functions that form represents. It teaches economic and political structures are primary and the forces they actually represent are secondary at best.


This creates a history and a politics that are at best really only a series of snapshots strung together in the semblance of a storyboard, or at worse a single blurred image, the import of which we endlessly haggle over with no hope of ever coming to a clear resolution.


If we accept this fragmentation of history and politics the best insight we can hope for is the pyramidal model of society that the ‘left’ and ‘right’ use.


The understanding we have of history and politics is not the result of unknowable abstractions, it is the concrete result of the most powerful forces in the society we live in. A fragmented and disintegrated political/ economic system inevitably produces a fragmented and disintegrated understanding of history and politics.


The disintegration of capitalist society we experience can be sourced to an elite – traditionally seen as the ‘top of the pyramid’, effectively drawing off a vector of wealth and power from society but not redistributing any of that wealth and power back.


Capitalism did not always do this, nor is it necessarily forced to this, but it has the tendency to do this. The potential to systematically and permanently vector wealth away from society to a specific elite differentiates Capitalism from all the other forms of society, contemporary and historical. It is what makes capitalism special.


Capitalism is a form of society where economics really can be separate from politics -an observation the left vehemently denies and the right celebrates but refuses to acknowledge the consequences of. But why does the ‘left’ deny this simple observation? Understand this and you understand the relationship between War, Welfare and Whiteism.


In the Divergent Split Stream Model the capitalist elite draws off wealth and power through the capitalist vector . (shown here). This wealth and power becomes increasingly INVISIBLE and UNKNOWABLE to the remaindered feudal integrated vector. For mainstream economics and politics (which are the province of feudalism), more or less the whole purpose of existence has become to try to understand what your elite is doing at any given time and hopefully to influence it.


Understanding the process of disintegration can give us historical insights into the motivations of the elite and their consequences for society as a whole.


At a crucial stage in its development, a capitalist elite is no longer automatically obliged to organise or defend the society they benefit from, symbolised by the moving out of military uniform that all capitalist elites eagerly undertake when they are able. I pointed out that kings and barons rise and fall with the redistribution systems they service. This is as true for contemporary feudal/integrated societies as for those that existed 500 years ago.


Capitalists are consciously ‘Independent’ when they no longer go to war to defend the society that protects and benefits them. Think about George Washington and the American War of Independence in this context. Think also about Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.


At the time of George Washington, nascent Anglo Saxon capitalists in America were in the process of creating a new separate system of wealth accumulation and redistribution based on the wholesale theft of that continent.


If anything distinguished the emerging Saxon American system from its European counterparts it was the fact that it sought to be pure and whole. The Anglo Saxon American process was entirely one of transferring a territory and its wealth from one racial cultural group to another; there was literally nothing else happening in America at that time. Proto America understood itself to be entirely a redistribution system.


And everyone who benefitted agreed that the process had great potential. It became the American Anglo Saxon evangelical project to demonstrate to the world that such a thing as a society running with only a capitalist vector was actually possible!


Here is America’s specific claim to moral, political, and historical uniqueness in the world; Germanic Land Democracy that you can successfully run a society without a feudal/integrated vector. Damn the Pope! Damn the European hierarchy of Church, Nobility and Society! And Double Damn Noblesse Oblige!


Just as ‘The King’ is the personification of the feudal/integrated system so ‘The Individual’ is the personification of this Capitalist vector. Summed up in the truly bizarre Saxon cri de coueur : ‘The Englishman’s Home Is His Castle’. Feudalism and Capitalism fused together; Germanic land Democracy.


At the precise historical moment of Americas birth, two imperatives clashed in the person of George Washington. One moment he was required to act as feudal king fighting a war as guarantor and defender of a uniquely American redistribution system. The next moment he was President; a mere elected functionary.


Washington hovered between these two states of public (and internal!), being. As feudal king his purpose was to integrate American society, as President he was representing the interests of forces that were striving to create the first permanently disintegrated society.


If you doubt the feudal personification of Washington and the American elite, remember that they named America’s capital city after this single man. And they did it with straight faces and no hint of irony. Isn’t this the very essence of ‘primitive’ feudalism?


Now compare the American Continental War with the First World War which was the last time a significant section of European, (in particular continental German), capitalists were willing to actually fight and die for the society they were beneficiaries of. After the Somme there were to be no more trenches for the young men of these elites. It was this change in society more than any other that gave the Second World War its own character twenty years later.


In a bizarre mix of comedy and tragedy, German corporate bosses decided to hire a replacement mock-feudal military caste to stand in for them in the form of the Nazis, led by the corporal Hitler! Has there ever been such a catastrophic bungle by any social group in history?


The burgher market trader instincts of German capitalists gave birth to the most deadly set of consequences imaginable. Most horribly ironic of all, Germans clearly recognise their propensity for this kind of stupidity in the classic tale of the ‘Pied Piper of Hamlyn’. But they are doomed to go ahead and relive it anyway…over and over again.


So here are two Germanic elites and two very different stories. American Anglo Saxon and Continental German had to adapt to and adopt the necessities of feudal integration and both did so in very different ways. These were two nations at different times under existential threat from outside. The Anglo Saxon American revolutionaries took feudalism on wholesale, the Continental Germans tried to buy a ready made version of it off the shelf. The Anglo Saxons in America succeeded wildly and the Germans failed catastrophically. Neither outcome was happenstance.


The historical lesson here is that CAPITALISM ALWAYS NEEDS FEUDALISM to survive and develop. If Capitalism fails to harness the power of feudalism, it risks its own existence. You can‘t fake it as the German bourgeoisie found out to its cost…


Most exactly of all, Capitalism needs to construct a feudalist distribution sub system if the capitalist elite is to successfully disintegrate itself from society.


Who will administer society if the capitalist elite is off pursuing its own interests? On what basis, with what justification, will this administering body operate? Its only viable justification is the integration of society; the essence of feudalism


A bureaucracy must be formed representing a new relationship between oppressed and oppressor. Instead of paying money to the King who distributes it to his enforcers, you must pay the enforcers directly!


But this capitalist/feudal bureaucracy is different because of a third consequence of disintegration; the emergence of ‘social science’.


Social science is only possible and necessary when you want exact scientific knowledge of the ‘mass’ of people as a separate grouping. Enter the new capitalist disciplines of Sociology, Anthropology etc. In the universities and the colleges of the 18th and C19th the foundations of a new priesthood is being created.


By the time that the Split Stream Welfare Model is implemented the capitalist elite has effectively reproduced the pre-capitalist system but excluded the itself from it. In other words the elite has become truly ‘modern’ and ‘scientific’ by means of ensuring that the remainder of society is ‘primitive’. And every capitalist society since then is objectively judged to be successful to the extent that it manages to recreate a feudal system and visibly exclude itself from it.


Of course, we need a name for this new relationship between bureaucracy and society. We can hardly directly admit it is feudalism- that the brave new future we are building is fundamentally dependent on the past. So we give this state of affairs a new name to reflect its ‘social’ nature ; we will call it ‘Socialism’.


Now we can see where Germanic ‘class’ politics springs from- a concoction of feudalism, welfare and socialism (or War, Welfare and Whiteism if you prefer). This is the political structure that will support and illuminate the new redistribution system.


And so along with Washington and Hitler, vector history brings Karl Marx into focus.


Somewhat vain and self important but also brilliant, Marx was a rogue operator in the new emerging social sciences. Like an insufferably precocious pupil Marx constantly disrupts and irritates the lecturer with startling insights, speculations and guesses called out from the back of the class. Some of these catcalls were pinpoint accurate and some were horribly wrong.


But by effectively second guessing a whole raft of developments in the emergence of social science, rogue student Marx managed to disrupt the entire inaugural lecture. The carefully planned unveiling of ‘Social Science’ collapsed into chaos!


And it has never recovered..Is it any wonder the establishment regards him as they do?


It’s hard not to see young Marx as something of a Victor Frankenstein character (as in Prometheus), seeking forbidden knowledge, failing to heed the warnings of his teachers and ultimately heading for disaster.


And while we are about it; seeking to raise what was dead through the newly acquired power of science… Given what we know about young Mary Wollstonecraft and her antecedents, I think I can make an argument that the Frankenstein story itself is a metaphor precisely for the emergent scientific capitalist class bringing feudalism back from the dead.


This is Not America…


By the time America invaded Vietnam in the 1960’s none of its national elite or their children went to die in wars. And nobody seriously expected them to. This certainly gave the Vietnam war its very own peculiar nature. American society at large was well aware of the extent this change even if it did not understand the full significance of it. What this meant was that America and its elite, despite its peculiar development path was becoming more like the European states.


The documentary film ‘Best of Enemies’ records the televised debates in 1968 between liberal Gore Vidal and conservative William F. Buckley Jr. and it happens to capture perfectly this moment of America’s final transition from ‘capitalist+’ to ‘capitalist-‘ society. As the publicity blurb for the documentary has it:


‘ Intended as commentary on the issues of their day, these vitriolic and explosive encounters came to define the modern era of public discourse in the media, marking the big bang moment of our contemporary media landscape when spectacle trumped content and argument replaced substance’


To make it absolutely clear: The Nixonian/ Neo Con movement as espoused by William F Buckley jr that emerged in the late 1960’s is a welfare system just as its liberal counterpart espoused by Gore Vidal was. It’s specific argument is that welfare should be constructed in such a way as to benefit white Anglo Saxon society and particularly white working class Anglo Saxons at the expense of other sections of American society. In other words it seeks to exclude some sections of society to more clearly cohere the remainder around a specific identity.


It is no coincidence that Nixonian welfare centered on the Moral Majority emerges precisely when the elite begins to very consciously disengage (as in the Vietnam war) from American society. The project is to then put in place a comprehensive new welfare system that society will rely on to maintain cohesion. Buckley and Vidal are arguing over what the nature of the new sub system feudal welfare system, (LBJ’s The Great Society), will be.


It is every bit as consciously redistributive as so called liberal or socialist opponents. Its difference centres on who qualifies. And who qualifies will be decided by which version of the history of America becomes the dominant narrative.


From this perspective the animus between the two antagonists comes into clear focus. It is no accident that both are populist disseminators of American history. It is no accident that their central argument revolves around what the content and meaning of American history is.


If Thine Eye Offend Thee..


And now we can finally move towards a rational explanation for what seems totally irrational oxymoronic Neo Conservatism: It is America’s admission that it needs feudalism in some form if the elite is to successfully disengage. But in this admission America’s previous strength is revealed as a weakness because it has no feudal backstory to hang its welfare state on. It is going to have to invent one.


This is the opportunity for ‘right wing’ public intellectuals like Buckley and Irving Kristol to prove their worth. We can explain how Neo Conservatism can draw together an establishment WASP like Buckley and an ex ‘Trotskyist’ like Kristol within the context of American politics. On the surface their political trajectories would appear to be irreconcilable. But if we understand that their shared struggle is not to re-formulate the future but the past, many of the apparent contradictions evaporate.


Both Kristol and Buckley realised that in the creation of Neo Conservatism, their shared purpose was to try to find a way to create a vision of the past and to present it as the future; feudalism as welfare. The inspiration of Neo Conservatism is to accept the practical reality of the need for feudalism, while publically denying it with all your might. In a moment of clarity Kristol realised that feudalism/integration was essentially what his Trotskyist Socialism had been about all along.


From this perspective we can see that the Cold War arguments over whether communist Russia was more advanced than USA is really an internal argument about the future of America. America is projecting its hopes and anxieties onto Russia and later Japan and China. Because now the American elite continually gazes upon feudalism with fear and a kind of sick desire. They are painted into a corner. They are all turned around.


This has reached some kind of crisis point with Islamism. The modern Protestant welfare society finds itself powerless to launch an all out attack on feudalism. How can it? It will be cutting its own throat. No matter how much it is offended it cannot put its own eye out or cut off its own hand.


Disintegrated history and politics experiences its dislocation and confusion through the medium of past, present and future. Whenever the West tries to describe an alien society it does so in terms of primitive or advanced etc. The West is permanently confused as to whether China is modern or backwards. Or modern and backwards. Or whether it is going forwards or forwards and backwards at the same time.


The West looks for markers of ‘modernity’ like mobile phones or gay marriage. If you have a modern mobile phone network but not gay marriage is your society modern or backwards? Was Iran becoming more modern or less modern when it overthrew the Shah of Iran? Is the Arab Spring a leap forward or backward? Was Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood progressive or regressive? Confusion multiplies and reigns.


Something like this happened with astronomy. Retrograde motion is an observed phenomenon in astronomy in which planets appear to move ‘backward’ across the night sky. Of course, this is impossible, planets can no more move backward in space than societies can move backwards in time. Retrograde movement is the consequence of planets with relative trajectories seeming to accelerate at different speeds. They are all going forward in perfect order, it is just that from one point of view it can seem as though they are not.


When a model of the solar system was put forward that more accurately mirrored reality, all the confusion disappeared. Soon astronomers were able to predict the whereabouts of any given planet at any given time. It happened when they realised they could not calculate correctly with the earth as the centre of the system. The same thing must happen now with Anglo Saxon societies. The world does not revolve around them. History does not revolve around them.


Societies can appear to move backwards but of course they don’t really. They are all progressing forwards we just have to find a model to explain how. Vector history can do that. The key is to identify or restate a problem in a way no one has before and offer a solution. That is what I have done here.




Pyramid Schemes Or Vector History Or I’m Ready for My Close Up Or There is no such thing as a Disintegrated Society Or Is There?

The structure of pre-capitalist societies is often depicted as a Hierarchical pyramidal structure with the mass of people forming the widest part of the pyramid at the bottom and then progressively smaller echelons forming each tier as it moves towards the top. We can call this a Standard Hierarchy Model and make a simple diagram of it something like this:



In this model wealth and power moves upwards from the bottom of the pyramid to the top and wealth and power in the form of patronage is redistributed down from the top to the bottom. In establishment rhetoric this is portrayed as the ‘classic’ ‘oppressive’ state structure.


Establishment history argues that this oppressive state structure belongs both to our pre-capitalist past and contemporary non capitalist societies such as North Korea, (which in Establishment ideology are essentially the same thing). But Establishment history argues that in contrast to all other types of societies, present and past, the pyramid structure is modified within capitalist societies.


The crudest Establishment description of hierarchy modification is in the Inverted Hierarchy Model. This model shows the mass of people benefiting from capitalism relatively and absolutely more than any other echelon in the pyramid. The argument is that the lower down you are in the oppressive pyramid model the more you benefit from the Inverted Hierarchy Model. We can show it like this:


In this model it is argued that power ‘democratically’ flows away from elites, up to the mass of people. Then patronage is redistributed down from the mass of people to the elite through the democratic process. As proof of this redistribute process the Inverted Hierarchy Model argues that the mass of people receive invisible, intangible social goods. These include the right to be an individual, the right to express opinions in free speech, sexual freedom etc, As an added bonus these riches get progressively larger and more encompassing with every passing year!


This Inverted Hierarchy Model is obviously overtly ideological and tends to be used mostly in Anglo Saxon societies and in particular the USA. But that doesn’t mean that is has no basis in history and culture. The objective is to try to understand what basis it actually has..


A more subtle Establishment argument is to agree that we live in a base heavy pyramidal structured society but to argue that who is at the top of the pyramid and who is at the bottom regularly changes over time. In other words the structure remains constant but the composition of the pyramid is open to change. This model accepts the implied need for the state to guarantee some kind of equality to mitigate the nature of the pyramid but characterises this as the need for equality of opportunity.


In contrast, anti Establishment arguments emphasise the fact that the structure of the pyramid remains constant irrespective of the composition of any particular echelon. Any movement of elements within the pyramid is limited and inconsequential. It follows that if the pyramid is incapable of internal change, change must come from outside.

So the basic mainstream Establishment position is:

The Capitalist form of society is a pyramid but it differs from previous social pyramids in that its composition changes and will continue to change over time.

The anti Establishment position is:

The pyramid is essentially the same as previous pyramids, has not changed and will not change until political force (usually from below), makes it change.


On these two essential positions the matter rests and has rested for some time. But it is possible to conceive of social structure in a different, dynamic way. This dynamic understanding can illuminate the observation people understand the pyramid structure not in abstract or random ways, but in ways that are exactly the inevitable outcome of the relationship between elite and the rest of society and the way this relationship has developed and been subjectively experienced.


Instead of the Establishment series of ongoing pyramid ‘snapshots’ or the opposition ‘oil painting’ of a single static pyramid, we can imagine the pyramid form instead as a dynamic vector on a graph representing a flow of wealth and power from the base of the hierarchy to the top and then back down again. This model integrates movement into the basic model itself. It is the difference between the dissection of a cadaver and studying the flow of blood through a living body.


Lets go back and look at the classic ‘oppressive’ pyramid structure from the perspective of this Hierarchical flow model. It looks like this:


Wealth and power moves upwards from the ‘peasants’ at the bottom to the ‘King’ at the top and is then redistributed by the King back down through the lords and barons and so on until a residue of wealth reaches the bottom again. In this model the elite is the mechanism of redistribution and the ‘King’ is the personification of the elite. We are taught that this is how medieval European society or contemporary non capitalist society such as North Korea is structured.


The fundamental Capitalist critique of an oppressive state structure like this is that the ‘King’ collects wealth and power from the people and then redistributes it to the power structure that protects him and the echelons below him from the people he collects wealth from in the first place. In other words the process of redistribution reinforces the redistributive structure in place and makes it impervious to change. This can be called a Force System.


The people pay to the King and the King pays the bodyguards and so on downwards thought society. Redistribution and force are intertwined. Wealth is redistributed throughout society through the Force System.


This process is characterised as a ‘crony system’ by Capitalists. It is also often misrepresented as a Forced System as opposed to a Force System. Capitalists argue that because redistribution is done through the force system it is ‘forced’ – it cannot be to any extent voluntary. They argue that this is morally unfair and/or economically and politically inefficient. They argue that it must inevitably collapse, and if it doesn’t decent people should work to bring about that collapse anyway and by any means necessary.


You should note that Germanic capitalist ideology viscerally detests Force System   because it does not reward the personal character traits that German culture and personality  admires and promotes.


The Fate of Kings


In a fully ‘feudal’ society everybody is effectively employed by government. Your economic boss is very often literally the general who leads you to war. And this political/economic model is reproduced right up to the very top. The commercial and the political is entirely integrated and entirely consistent , (which is to say that the logic of society is reproduced throughout society to the same extent). All of society is integrated and consistent.


The king is the guarantor of the system and the network. Consider the fate of Gaddafi in Libya and Ceausescu in Romania. Consider also what is in store for al Assad if his enemies get their way. This fate of kings is not random or happenstance. The fate of the King is absolutely entwined with the fate of the redistributive system.


Rather than a feudal society It would be more accurate to call this an integrated society because economics and politics are fused and every echelon is fused to the one above and below it by means of the redistributive system.


The popular capitalist ideological critique is that systems like this are static. Everybody is in a place within the system. Nobody can be outside the system and nobody can move within the system. Of course if they see any evidence to the contrary of their assertions they simply ignore it.


This criticism fits within the capitalist list of accusations which run from popular to true in descending order:
It is static

It rewards ‘bad character’

It is dangerous for ‘the people’ (which really means it is dangerous for people like us!)


If the capitalist system was the opposite of an integrated society it would be a disintegrated society wouldn’t it ? Could there be such a thing as a disintegrated society? A society like this would be a society that is defined by the belief that: ‘There is no such thing as society’. Could such a society exist? If so how could it exist?


With the advent of Capitalism instead of one income and dispersal system there are now two systems within society. Where there was only the integrated feudal political system there is now also a separate capitalist ‘economic’ system that mirrors the feudal political system. This can be called a Split Stream Model because there are two separate streams of income and redistribution. It can be shown like this.


Wealth and power rises and falls on a ‘commercial’ stream (blue) and a parallel political stream (red). Both streams are integrationist which is to say they concentrate wealth upwards towards the elite and then redistribute it.


Notice that this model does not differentiate between a ‘feudal’ and ‘capitalist’ elite. There is no need to try to manufacture a fundamental political or cultural conflict between the feudal and the capitalist elite in this model. They have separate income streams and dispersal networks but they are not fundamentally different.


This is in stark contrast to capitalist establishment history, (and Establishment anti-Capitalist theory!), for which it is very important to claim that capitalist elite are different from the feudal elite, because they have been transformed by an intangible, magical process called ‘Enlightenment’


I’m Ready For My Close Up


This Split Stream Model can be regarded as the basis for the idea of a ‘Golden Age of Capitalism’. In as far as Capitalism can be said to be progressive, the justification for it lies in this model.


The capitalist commercial blue vector shows Capitalism concentrating power upwards through the capitalist production process and then redistributing wealth and power back down through the very same capitalist production process. It should be very clear that unlike a feudal system wealth and power are NOT redistributed back to the people they had been extracted from. And wealth and power are NOT redistributed to everyone throughout society. But they are redistributed comprehensively nevertheless.


Imagine yourself standing on any point on the blue vector in other words, imagine yourself as part of the commercial vector. As part of the process, from your point of view Capitalism really does redistribute wealth and power; you can see it happening, it is happening to you. You are part of an alternative to the feudal redistribution system.


This is the form of society that traditional (sometimes ‘libertarian’ and even Neo Conservative) Anglo Saxon history focuses on. This is the basis and justification for Neo Conservative ‘trickle down’ rhetoric and at the same time the reason for its ‘Libertarian’ opposition returning again and again to the period of the American Constitution, and even sometimes the French Revolution.


We can look again at the Inverted Pyramid Model from this perspective. For someone at the apex of the blue vector the pyramid is indeed inverted.. power and wealth comes to you and you redistribute it. And that is why this model forms the basis for all pro-market, particularly Saxon rhetoric. Think of it as a snapshot of Germanic capitalism in early adulthood; fresh-faced and looking at her very best. It’s the same snapshot that Capitalism still uses on her Facebook page, although it’s a long time since she looked anything like that….


There are two systems co existing, but one of them has a clear future where the other does not. A new Divergent Split Stream Model begins to assert itself where economic wealth and power is no longer distributed back down through the lower echelons. The feudal vector system comprehensively redistributes wealth. The capitalist vector no longer does.

What this means is that in effect the capitalist vector is getting its government for free….It can abandon its obligations outside of the state. That model looks like this:


As a consequence of capitalists abandoning any social obligations they may have felt they had, the feudal system progressively impoverishes itself in comparison with the capitalists. This is effectively the moment of overt capitalist revolutions, the moment when ‘feudalists’ and ‘capitalists’ understand the true meaning of what is happening and what its inevitable consequences will be. Then comes a decisive political battle. Ironically it is when capitalism stops actually being progressive and revolutionary that an actual capitalist revolution becomes necessary!


And now things get really interesting.

The post revolutionary redistribution system bypasses the elite entirely. This is the Split Stream Welfare Model and it looks like this:


The top echelon elite have taken themselves out of the redistribution process altogether but they are still protected by it. The elite are effectively disintegrated from the system. The difference between an old fashioned ‘oppressive’ pyramid and a modern system is that the people used to pay wealth and power to the King to distribute to his bodyguards. Now they pay to the bodyguards directly. This is called democracy. The system is streamlined.


And if the red vector looks familiar from the models above. It should because it is the same one.

Now the Split Stream Welfare Model reproduces the feudal distribution system, but outside of the elite. That is what ‘welfare’ redistribution actually is; a reproduction of the classic feudal non capitalist redistribution system but at a lower level of society. If redistribution is really feudalism, is the left really ‘feudal’?

You betcha!

So what is a ‘progressive’ then?

‘Back To The Future’ Next time….

Spelling It Out or It’s Not You, It’s Me

You can often hear proponents of the ‘Austrian’ school and others on the ‘right’ calling for the market to set base interest rates. This bizarre call is a non sequitur – meaningless.


The market is made up of both buyers and sellers and their interests are necessarily conflicting. The market does not ‘speak’ with one voice; by definition, it cannot. How can it set anything?


It is like asking a field of runners halfway through a race to come to an agreement on where the finish line should be…


Of course the market can’t collectively determine anything. Firstly, when the market ‘speaks’ it is the preponderance of individual views of within the market. When the market ‘speaks’ it is the result of something; it is a reaction; the exact opposite of being the cause of something.


Secondly, for communication to convey meaning it has to be the result of some form of reason. For the market to actually express a meaningful point of view it would be necessary for it to consciously arrive at a point of view, enunciate that point of view and stick to it.


But the market changes, literally from second to second because the balance of forces within the market changes from second to second. Even if you were to somehow accept the idea of ‘speech’ from the market, you have to accept that the meaning of that speech will change in a couple of seconds time. Even if you try to argue the market has a mind, you have to accept that the market can never make that mind up.


Because although the buyers and sellers who make up a market are supposed to be rational agents expressing their own rational self interest, the cumulative consequence of their actions is not. These are the ‘animal spirits’ of ‘fear’ and ‘greed’ that everyone agrees the market expresses.


Market religion claims that by means of alchemy the market changes base instincts into what is best for everybody inside and outside the market. Somehow something even better than considered reason appears spontaneously!


The market cannot speak because it cannot have an established continual rational point of view and it cannot create a rational point of view because it is made up of conflicting impulses. If there was no such conflict it wouldn’t be a market.


It does not matter whether it is a pre-centralised system of private banks or a modern central bank system, a rational market ‘mechanism’ to set base rates is impossible.


It follows from this that if base interest rates are to be set for any given period, they have to be presented to the market in advance by somebody outside the market, working to some kind of rationale. And every nation and collection of nations operates on this basis.


So what is behind the call for base interest rates to be set by the market? The main reason given is that interest rates are seen to be all going one way. Since the Credit Crunch and the implementation of ’emergency measures’ central banks have followed a Zero Interest Rate Policy.


Of course, it is becoming harder and harder to see ZIRP as an ‘emergency’ measure after seven years or so. Direct government dictat has the consequence of shredding the rhetoric of supposed central bank independence.


And ZIRP disguises a secular decline in interest rates that has been taking place in the Anglo Saxon economies since the 1980’s. Economists on left and right have no way to explain this outside of tautology: Interest rates are low, well…. because interest rates are low.


I argue that base interest rates are proclamations made by an authority, be that authority elected government officials or ‘independent’ central banks.


The interest rate setting authority makes a proclamation; sometimes characterised as an offer depending on how you wish to portray it. Depending on how many individuals take up that offer, the issuing authority amends the offer next time, this is the market reasoning justification for the system.


If an increasingly large number of people take up the credit offer at a given interest rate the interest rate is increased to stem the ongoing flow of credit applications. If a decreasingly small number of people take up the credit offer at a given interest rate, the interest rate is decreased to stimulate the flow of credit applications.


You might ask: Why don’t authorities amend the interest rate from hour to hour or even minute to minute – why do they only change the interest rate quarterly?


The answer is they need time to collect, collate and process the information. Because their decision is supposed to be based on reason to some extent. You might not agree with their reasoning, but you wlll see that if a central bank announced that base interest rates will be 1.5% for the next hour based on a ‘hunch’, the economic system it was set up to administer wouldn’t last for very long!


In other words the system we used to have and the system as it is now are not the result of arbitrary choices, they operate at the exact limit of development allowed by politics and technology at any given time.


Since the system is not really open to arbitrary change what does that say about the decisions that the system makes? It means that the decisions it is making at this time are the only possible decisions it can make given the limitation of politics and technology. If we understand the constraints of politics and technology we can understand what the decisions have to be.


With this in mind, we should address the fact that the main decision of central banks seems to be not to make any decision. Interest rates are effectively at zero and staying there. We have the quarterly ritual of: ‘Will they, won’t they move off ZIRP?’ and the answer so far is always no.


This is problematic for me as I have argued that moving towards a new baseline average interest rate of 2.5-3.5% is the next step in the implementation of Democratised Money. I have also argued that international exchange rate blocs are a fundamental requirement for the international framework for Democratised Money. And neither of these things has happened yet.


It is possible that the delay in normalising interest rates and creating exchange rate blocs is linked to the Pacific and European TTIP agreements. Trade blocs like Pacific and European TTIP are an inevitable part of the Democratised Money world. It could be that nothing else will be done until they are both securely in place. Now that the Pacific TTIP is moving forward again, the increase in interest rates and exchange rate blocs will be implemented.


But I think there is another reason for continued ZIRP and it comes from the internal ‘logic’ specific to this exact time and place.


All central bank rate setters, be that the Federal reserve, The ECB or the Bank of England are ‘democratic’ to the extent that they vote to decide about where to set base rates but that is as far as the democracy goes.


Nobody elects the members of any central bank committee, they are there by appointment. So they cannot claim any democratic mandate per se. The justification for being there is actually an inversion of a democratic argument.


Independent central bank advocates argue that political control of base rates by an elected official is detrimental to market confidence in that rate. The rate setter needs to be able to operate independently of democratic ‘pressure’ e.g. pressure from electorates. Democratic voting is the method by which rates are arrived at, but technocratic reasoning is the justification.


But this line of argument presents certain problems.


The post 1970’s call for independent banking was justified by the Monetarist shibboleth of inflation. This was supposed to be the one and only overriding consideration. Monetarists claimed that if inflation was under control and the money supply regulated all would be well. But as the Credit crunch and resulting QE opened the door to direct political interference reasons had to be found to provide cover for and justify direct interference. And so the mandate of central banks was modified to include macro-economic ‘stability’.


When the situation was ‘stabilised’ to some extent it was suddenly found that central banks also needed to target unemployment and so interference would have to continue.


When employment seemed to recover somewhat, central banks discovered that broad economic growth must also be added to their macro economic mandate.


When growth seemed to recover somewhat central banks discovered the ‘productivity gap’. When it became apparent nobody really believed in the productivity gap or understood what it was, central banks discovered the threat that interest rate rises posed for developing economies and that is where we stand today.


The specific logical conundrum is this: If central banks are indeed identifying problems and fixing them as they claim to be, then they either have to find new problems to fix or to stop interfering in the market at some point. On the other hand, if central banks are identifying problems and not managing to fix them, then something is seriously wrong with the central bank system itself.


The upshot of this is that insurgents continually claim that central banks have failed to solve any of the serious macro economic problems. The establishment claim that they have solved a number of problems and are effectively managing the new ones that always seem to be appearing.


But what unites establishment and insurgents is the claim that central bank interference in the economy is somehow voluntary and limited. The establishment claims that the central banks will stop interfering at some point in the future because they will have fixed all the problems. The insurgents claim that the central banks interfere because they want to protect their fraudulent ponzi scheme etc.


But I argue that Monetarists have no choice but to interfere to in order to protect democratised money. Once the creation of privately issued money began, everything else that followed was inevitable.


The purpose of QE and ZIRP is to defend and promote the growth of privately issued democratised money. The Fed and the Bank of England cannot and will not stop with emergency measures until they believe that derivatives are completely integrated into the global financial system in a way that means they can never be removed.


It is this imperative to protect democratised money that has been the real reason behind the ongoing interference in money markets. It is this imperative that is the logic behind QE and ZIRP. And it was the belief that the project of irreversibly integrating democratised money has largely been achieved that led to the recent hints of a rise in base interest rates in America and Britain.


But the Fed cannot bring itself to pull the trigger. They are trapped in their own logic.


By citing an increasing number of different reasons for intervening, the central banks built for themselves a new group of constituencies. Effectively Inflation, GDP Growth, Unemployment, Productivity gap and Developing economies all represent constituencies that the central bank committees have come to claim to represent. And this is the argument that has largely been successful in justifying the central bank approach to the markets. It is a polygamous marriage of convenience. But to raise interest rates will undermine the interests of this collection of constituencies and bring to the fore the question of what the purpose of the central banks actually is.


This is the reason central banks are reluctant to begin raising interest rates. They cannot say they have fixed the central problem and ‘new normalise’ base rates without saying what the problem they have fixed, is!


The collection of constituencies that central banks have gathered together as a justification and cover for the democratised money project has proved to be very useful. But at some stage there is going to have to be a parting of the ways and at that moment a lot of people are going to be asking the central banks: ‘Did you ever really love me?’

The Marketplace of Ideas 2



I suggest you read the blog and then watch the video..



The purpose of the ‘Marketplace of Ideas’ in the first instance is to explain what happened to Russell Brand in his recent battle with the media for public opinion. This is part of a broader discussion on the nature of political, cultural and philosophical debate in Anglo Saxon society and why discussion of alternatives has always failed to make a significant impression on this society in particular.


Whether you agree with Brands particular form of alternative politics or not, it was pretty obvious that he lost more than just an argument about politics. Clearly he was personally damaged by what has happened to him. There are important observations to be made here for anyone who seriously considers proposing or implementing alternatives for society.


Only a short while ago Brand published a widely discussed book on ‘Revolution’ and had more or less cornered media attention with his advocacy for abstention from voting in elections. Yet within a few months he was largely discredited and isolated. And now he seems to have withdrawn almost completely from alternative politics.


This change in fortune was not somehow the consequence a disconnected chain of events or the result of poor personal choices. It was clear that a media lynch mob was intent on waging a war of attrition on Brand and succeeded in their objective. What was remarkable was that this provoked no widespread outrage or even a mildly critical response from the majority of the alternative media.


It is hardly the first time that someone like Brand has been publicly mauled like this and I can confidently predict it will not be the last. With this in mind we should try to understand the intellectual framework within which this media vivisection occurred. What is the content of media and societal thought that makes an outcome like this possible?


The stock answer would be that mainstream media and society are in the right so of course they won, but I am sure you would agree that it is hardly likely to be as simple as that.


The next simplest explanation is one of economic and political power and sheer weight of numbers. The mainstream media can saturate the discussion till they win. But this does not address the question of why the press is a homogenous mass- of why they all think the same.


This leads to the argument that press and society is homogenous because the press owners are all capitalists and oligarchs. This observation is hardly new. But do the readers of the press not know this? Do they not discount it when they read the press? What is the mechanism that links the buttons the press pushes with the lights that go on the in the public mind? Why are press and public coherent?


The only viable explanation is that there is an overarching framework of ideas that controls debate. It is a framework that works; that maintains society in a stable form. I likened this framework to the roots of a tree. Like a root system it initially seems impossibly complex. But if we bring the network to light we can categorise classes and types of roots and their relationship one to another and to the tree as a whole.


In the first part of my analysis I dealt with the Power Of Naming and Subversive Naming which is the battle to control the terms of the argument. Characterise Brand as ‘this person’ and his ideas as ‘this type of idea’ and you have gone ninety percent of the way to victory.


If Brand battles from ‘principle’ he can’t beat mainstream media system because their purpose in arguing is not to ‘win’ an argument on principle or intellect but to produce an army of believers that will continuously attack Brand.


This army of reporters, commentators, and web contributors endlessly launch wave after wave of assaults. By this means the Power of Naming is used to reconstruct and ultimately neutralise the opposition. It is ideological sandblasting-a million tiny particles wearing the subject away. What is the organising principle that allows a stream like this to be focused and directed with force at the opposition?


Following on from the Power of Naming I identified the Marketplace of Ideas which I argue determines what is possible through argument and discourse and in particular defines the originality of thought.


If originality can be defined as not doing or thinking what you are told, then it inevitably leads to collapse of the existing order. In this time and place originality is those thoughts or actions which directly or indirectly leads to the collapse of capitalism, since this is the dominant order. It follows then that capitalism does not want originality, or rather capitalism cannot sustain more than a certain very limited amount of originality. And the amount of originality that can be tolerated must necessarily decrease over time.


How does the capitalist thought system control, limit and where necessary kill, originality? I argue that it is though the Ownership of Ideas and the creation of a new kind of modern totalitarian society.


I used ‘1984’ as a description of modern totalitarianism that cannot be overthrown in the classical sense because it is totalitarian control of thought. This difference between physical totalitarianism and intellectual totalitarianism is important because totalitarianism is now of the mind.


This new kind of total mental control is sometimes referred to as ‘Inverted Totalitarianism’.


Inverted totalitarianism is a term coined by political philosopher Sheldon Wolin in 2003 to describe the emerging form of government of the United States. Wolin believes that the United States is increasingly turning into an illiberal democracy, and uses the term “inverted totalitarianism” to illustrate similarities and differences between the United States governmental system and totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union. In Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt by Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco, inverted totalitarianism is described as a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics. In inverted totalitarianism, every natural resource and every living being is commodified and exploited to collapse, (including Ideas!-AP) as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism



It is Nazism turned upside-down, “inverted totalitarianism.” While it is a system that aspires to totality, it is driven by an ideology of the cost-effective rather than of a “master race” (Herrenvolk), by the material rather than the “ideal.”



‘Inverted Totalitarianism’ and the Marketplace of Ideas can be compared to ‘1984’ to get a more complete composite sense of modern totalitarianism.


There are omissions in the future vision that Orwell describes.


The first is Ideas as commodities which is at the crux of ‘1984’ but never explored in the text.


Ownership of Ideas is based and relies on, the Provenance of Ideas intellectually abstracted and formalised into the History of Ideas.


The Provenance of ideas is a legal argument dressed up as intellectual description. This legal argument expressly challenges the idea of overarching truth. It creates a dichotomy between the past and the present, the traditional and the modern. This is usually centred on the Enlightenment which it is claimed spontaneously produced the modern mind.


Ownership of Ideas leads to Ideas as commodities, artefacts which are traded as an expression of their social value. Understanding Ideas as commodities leads to   the Marketplace of Ideas and the real purpose and meaning of discourse and debate.


Ideas are claimed to have proven ownership through the concept of provenance disguised by the intellectual discipline of ‘History’. Owned Ideas are revealed as commodities through use in consumption and trade. As commodities they have commodity value.


Commodity Value is a social construction in two ways: something is either valuable because everyone (or a large number) believe it to be valuable (and want it), or it is valuable because it gives an individual or group an advantage over everyone else. This is analogous to exchange value and use value.


For example, the social value of the ‘modern western medicine’ Idea can be understood as its ability to make a society healthy or to make an individual healthier than others. Vaccination and the controversies that surround it are an excellent illustration of this process and of the contradictions that are never far from it’s surface.


Vaccination is supposed to confer ‘herd immunity’ if enough members of a community are vaccinated. This is the group social value of vaccination; why we should all want it. But if an individual is successfully vaccinated that individual cannot catch the disease whether everybody else is vaccinated or not. This individual ‘use value’ of vaccination renders herd immunity irrelevant.

Herd immunity can only be of benefit to those people who have chosen not to be vaccinated as they are the only ones who can catch the disease. But they cannot be allowed to choose not to be vaccinated and take advantage of herd immunity because this damages herd immunity, which is what is protecting them! How can this bizarre logical catch 22 be resolved?


Vaccination only works as a Commodity Idea if it is generally accepted as a benefit with little or no risk. Individual benefit (use benefit) and group benefit (exchange benefit) work hand in hand with each other. But if you don’t accept the individual or the group benefit of vaccination the argument breaks down completely! In other words if you don’t accept the Commodity Value of the Vaccination Idea then the logic behind it breaks down.


Why does this matter?


Because it shows that there is no a priori logic behind vaccination but rather it is a Commodity Idea. It is valuable for as long as it is seen to be valuable by individuals and by society. When a significant section of the population question whether it is valuable either for themselves or for society as a whole it breaks down- not just as something people do but as a logical proposition! It’s not that people just stop doing it but it actually stops making sense. In other words it is only logical to the extent that people believe it is logical!


At this point there are two possible responses to ‘vaccination’ and what is claimed about it.

Either it is a lie or it is something other than a lie ( a useful fiction?).

Of course, in the modern world we don’t deal in ‘truth’ and ‘lies’ so the opposition to vaccination must be the product of ‘cranks’ ‘flat earthers’, in other words ‘The Primitive’ and so on…..

Here is how debate is exactly controlled and curtailed within the framework of Modernity and Tradition.


If it is claimed that an idea has no value in and of itself (in other words it is not either ‘true’ or ‘untrue’), then its value has to be established by other means. What other means can there be? It has to be proven by means of being trialled. It’s efficacy will be established through Trials.


The trials used to establish the efficacy of an idea in modern Germanic societies are carefully controlled public debates which are in effect the same as scientific trials.


What you saw with Russell Brand was the trialling of a set of ideas. But not Russell Brands ideas, because Russell Brand has no original ideas.


What was being trialled were the ideas of the ruling elite. That is what ‘discussion’ and ‘debate’ is; a means for elites to scientifically evaluate how effective their ideas are in controlling the way people think.


That is why debate is allowed and promoted. Brand is run through the maze like a white rat until dehydrated and exhausted he collapses. It is the maze that is being tested, not the rat!


It is a public demonstration of the efficacy of any given aspect of the system. The system is tested over and over again in public to prove to everybody’s satisfaction that it works. Not that it is ‘true’. Not that it is honest. Not that it is decent. But that it works. This is how its existence is justified. Not even that the ends justifies the means; the means IS the end. The defeat of both Truth and Originality.


So what would happen if Brand or any other white rat were to find a weakness or anomaly in the maze? The error would be repaired or amended and the trial would begin again. The story is updated and improved whenever a weakness is discovered.


This is called ‘Progress’….


The rat can never ‘win’ the trials; no-one can ever ‘win’ the debate and retire from the trials, any more than a lab rat can be allowed to escape from the maze, find a mate and set up a colony of free rats in the corner of a commercial laboratory….the idea of ‘winning’ a debate is INSANE.


Now we have established scientific efficacy of Commodity Ideas through the Trial process, we have one final step to take. Efficacy alone is too abstracted as a form of appraisal. After all, an artefact can be efficacious on any number of levels and in respect of any number of applications. We need a form of effectiveness that is specific to the Germanic Cult of Capitalism. We need Profitability.


Establishing Profitability entails a concrete financial appraisal of effort in and result out as described in the definition of Inverse Totalitarianism:


‘it is driven by an ideology of the cost-effective rather than of a “master race” (Herrenvolk), by the material rather than the “ideal.”’


This leads to the observation that in this society the purpose of discourse is to exploit the value that ideas have for as long as it is profitable. When it is no longer profitable to use, trade and maintain, an Idea is discarded and replaced. This is the fully formed Marketplace of Ideas.


Resources are martialed and applied to the promulgation of Ideas. These ideas are trialled and their Profitability evaluated, e.g. how much effort goes into them and how many people believe them. They are modified, discarded and replaced according to a resulting evaluation.


You can’t ‘win’ a debate under these circumstances. As the ‘opposition’ you are the bull in the ring; the ‘rube’ in the fairground; the rat in the maze. You say things because you believe them. The elite says things because you believe them. Discussion or debate is meaningless in this context.


The Germanic elite believes it is ‘elite’ as a consequence and expression of this intelligence. And that the way it operates is an expression of ‘intelligence’. Here is the great F Scott Fizgerald, horrified, amused and admiring modern Germanic intelligence all at the same time :


The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function

F Scott Fitzgerald

1984 as comedy


There is one further aspect of the Marketplace of Ideas that I need to mention That is ‘Intellectual Audacity’ which I will define as the ability and desire of the elite to relentlessly prosecute an idea until they don’t believe in it anymore. This of course, includes introducing new ideas.

Audacity is defined as:

‘Showing a willingness to take surprisingly bold risks.Showing an impudent lack of respect.


Taking intellectual risks makes you an Intellectual Entrepreneur; a vital component of the Marketplace of Ideas.


Those outside the Idea Trading Elite are always flabbergasted and outraged by the way that mainstream media insiders can continue to cling to an obvious lie even when there is clear evidence that it is untrue. They are equally astounded when the mainstream propagates a ‘new’ Idea that has no basis is fact whatsoever. The mainstream revels in this fringe astonishment, bewilderment and outrage. To them it is absolute proof of their modernity and superiority, their sophistication and their justified elite status.


Harold Pinter’s superb Nobel Prize acceptance speech refers to a kind of intelligence and gleeful wit that motivates the elite in this process. It is well worth an hour of your time….


The argument that Ideas are valuable not because of what they intrinsically are but because of what they do leads to Instrumentalism:


Instrumentalism is the methodological view in Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, advanced by the American philosopher John Dewey, that concepts and theories are merely useful instruments, and their worth is measured not by whether the concepts and theories are true or false (Instrumentalism denies that theories are truth-evaluable), or whether they correctly depict reality, but by how effective they are in explaining and predicting phenomena. It maintains that the truth of an idea is determined by its success in the active solution of a problem, and that the value of an idea is determined by its function in human experience.


Moral Instrumentalism (or Instrumentalist Morality) defines moral rules only as tools for moral good. Thus, the moral code arising from a given population is simply a collection of rules that are useful to that population. This view resembles Utilitarianism and developed from the teachings of David Hume and John Stuart Mill.


Political Instrumentalism is the view, developed by John Dewey from his instrumentalist and Pragmatist views, and from the much earlier writings of Niccolò Machiavelli, which sees politics as simply means to an end.


There is much more that could and should be written about the Marketplace of Ideas. If you would like to contribute something, small or large, please do.

The Marketplace of Ideas Part 1



In ‘GOODBYE, GOOD LUCK Or The Wrong Trousers Or Naming Subversion’ I discussed the Power of Naming and the way that it can be used to reconstruct opposition. This Power To Name was certainly instrumental in twisting round Russell Brand to the point that he has had to withdraw due to mental injury.


But there is a more complex and powerful factor in the battle to control the way we think; The Marketplace Of Ideas.


The Marketplace of Ideas is profound because it determines what is, and what is not possible to achieve through politics and discourse in the modern world.


The Marketplace of ideas does not just outline the rules of the game, it delineates the principles on which those rules are founded. The ‘Marketplace of Ideas’ is the root system of thought from which Germanic Capitalism grows; it is the network of tubers that anchors Germanic Capitalism and allows it to draw nutrients up from the ground. Cut this root and the tree will begin to die; just expose this root and the air and the light will begin to kill it.


Ideas as commodities


Modern/Germanic ideology characterises Ideas/Conceptions, (which I will refer to as Ideas), as commodities; a particular kind of social construction. To begin with, Ideas are artefacts, (man made objects), Germanic ideology does not accept Ideas as having existence outside of this Provenance.




Capitalism is founded and relies upon, the belief that Ideas like everything else that exists, have attributable ownership. Where there is no attributable ownership, there can be no Germanic law, because under Germanic law all authority comes from ownership.


The concept of Provenance (provable chain of ownership), itself means that no Idea can come from outside this system of ownership. There can be no ‘Inspiration’ in the classic sense of the word, which is: ‘To breathe on or breathe life into; To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence.’ In other words every idea starts with somebody and is therefore owned by somebody. Ideas cannot ever belong to everyone and no-one. Ideas can never be a commons.


As Ideas are understood as owned man made artefacts, it follows that they can be commodities, that is things that are valued according to how people see them to be. They cannot have a value outside of this. It follows from this that people can be divided into two groups; those who own ideas and those who don’t. In other words a market. Hence the Marketplace of Ideas.


Idea Commodities, Value and Time


In tandem with the Idea as a commodity with social value comes the Idea that only has value (value in trade or consumption), for a certain amount of time- a kind of ‘sell by’ date, leading to the Germanic ‘History’ brand.


Modern History and Ownership: Modernity and Tradition


History is intimately bound up with ownership, the two are mutually dependent.   History expresses the belief that there is no truth that lasts forever or that can exist outside the boundaries of a specific time. There can be no ideas that are valid forever. There can be no ideas that are universally true in all time and all space.


If it were possible that Ideas could be true for all time, there would be no way of differentiating between the past and present because no change in perspective would be possible. People in the ‘here and now’ would have no basis on which to understand people in the ‘there and then’ as different. There would be no history. But the in fact, belief in history is crystallised in the image of modernity and tradition.


The idea of a dichotomy between modernity and tradition is rooted in the way that the ‘Renaissance’ and the ‘Enlightenment’ are portrayed in German rhetoric. We are said to exist in the ‘Modern’ world because of the break with the past that Renaissance and Enlightenment represents and caused. As ‘modern’ people we are told that we think differently because of the Enlightenment, in fact we are told that we are fundamentally different people because of it.


The Progress Brand


The concept of ‘progress’ follows from this description of the Enlightenment. We are ‘modern’ in the sense that we are on this side of the historical fact of the Enlightenment and we have made ‘Progress’ in the sense that this is a good thing.


The ‘fact’ of the Enlightenment proves Progress is possible and once possible, Progress becomes inevitable. Because becoming aware of the possibility of Progress, is making Progress. You no longer see the world as stable and unchanging. Once you accept and believe in change, you are no longer ‘Primitive’.


Primitive people hold that what is true is always true and always will be true. And what is untrue is always untrue and always will be untrue. Truth and untruth are unchanging. So there can be no demarcation between modernity and the past. In contrast, ‘Modern’ people by definition can never accept that there is no difference between past, present and future. How can I be a ‘modern’ person if there is no difference between past and present?


So the ‘Progress’ brand naturally ‘evolves’ from the Enlightenment brand. It is a self proving, self referencing bubble. The fact that the Enlightenment happened is proof that thought can fundamentally change. The Enlightenment itself IS that fundamental change…


Does this mean that the arguments for Progress and Modernity are no more than a simple tautology? No. The key lies in the claim to universality for modern thought.


Why Modernity Is Forced To Make Itself Universal


Once ideas have a ‘sell by’ date, TIME becomes the central component of thought itself, allowing, and in the end forcing, Germanic thought to assume the mantle of MODERNITY and UNIVERSALITY. The categories of ‘truth’ and ‘untruth’, ‘validity’ and ‘invalidity’ become fused with and then subordinated to, Modernity and Tradition.


The ideology of Progress tells us that pre Enlightenment thought is fundamentally different from post Enlightenment thought. Pre Enlightenment thought is based on a belief in absolute truth expressed through concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. If Truth and Untruth is the universal dichotomy then Tradition and Modernity as expressed the Enlightenment must be secondary to this reality.


If it is possible that there is universal timeless Truth, and by implication Untruth, then the Enlightenment could be characterised as Untruth and challenged. The only way to neutralise this fatal weakness in the Enlightenment brand is to make it supplant THE CONCEPT OF TRUTH ITSELF. MODERNITY AND TRADITION IS NOW HOW REALITY IS TO BE NAVIGATED – NOT TRUTH AND UNTRUTH. Not Right and Wrong anymore but Now and Then.


The historical fact of the Enlightenment encapsulates this. In fact, the Enlightenment is both the vehicle and the content of this. The Enlightenment description of a progression from traditional to modern thought implies a relationship between two modes of thought that are antagonistic. This becomes the universal dichotomy.


The Truth is the expression of reality. The Enlightenment claims not to be The Truth, (an expression of reality), but to BE REALITY ITSELF. It places itself above Truth.


Truth and Untruth have been subsumed and supplanted and we are trapped in the bubble of the present; estranged from tradition because we are Modern, remorselessly moving into the future, progressing whether we like it or not.


This image of our condition might strike a chord with you. It is the essence of ‘1984’. We are trapped inside a Big Brother House – trapped inside a Big Bang universe. If we ask what was there before (outside), the Big Bang?- we are told such a question is unscientific; a meaningless question OUTSIDE of reality. If we now ask: What stands outside Modernity/Tradition? we are told the same thing.


Now you know why Germanic politics is divided into ‘Conservatives’ and ‘Progressives’ as opposed to ‘Honest’ and ‘Liars’ or ‘Christians’ and ‘Satanists’ or ‘Greedy’ and ‘Selfless’ and so on…


After the introduction of Modernity the possibility of disputing the way things are is over. After all, how can you dispute reality? ‘True’ and ‘False’ have been made the servants of this reality. There is nowhere left that you can stand to get a point of leverage. This is where Orwell left Winston Smith; trapped at a table in the traitors cafe, playing out a pointless game and waiting for the bullet that will put him out of his misery.


But we don’t have to be trapped – there is a way out.


Orwell was trapped in the modern mind because he did not understand Germanic provenance or the ownership of ideas. Or more accurately, Orwell was not willing to countenance the ownership of ideas. Why? Because as Mark Twain puts it: ‘It is hard to get a man to understand something when his living depends on not understanding it’.


In this case you can think of the ownership of ideas as negative ideology, not ‘Thought crime’ but an idea you cannot afford to think. Orwell was a professional author; he made his living by ‘having’ ideas and selling them. ‘1984’ is proof of this. If there is no legitimate private ownership of ideas Orwell must be merely a rentier or toll keeper of common ideas. His ego and his income could not survive this realisation.


And neither could 1984 itself. This gives us an insight into the way that ‘1984’ is revered as a semi religious text in the Anglo Saxon world instead of just another commercial enterprise, which is all it actually is. If you start to think of ‘1984’ as just another novel like Jilly Coopers ‘Riders’ for example, the illusion starts to fall apart.

In ‘1984’ Orwell is trying to dissect modern authoritarianism while avoiding the exact root cause of authoritarianism. Is it any wonder then that what he ends up producing is an increasingly frenzied description of madness where the greatest danger to the heroes continued existence is his own mind?


The endless trying to justify and reconcile the dichotomy is revealed throughout the book:


The novel begins with Smith writing an illegal unauthorised diary, a symbol of his individualism, but one that Smith recognises from the beginning is ultimately meaningless. (in the end it turns out that all Smith’s thoughts were not even his own.. where did they come from?)


Smith has lunch with Syme who is compiling the Newspeak dictionary. They discuss the production of language. Syme is too intelligent, Smith realises he will end up dead. Syme is clearly a representation of a dangerous part of Orwells intellect as he recognises it.


Smith forms a relationship with Julia who is involved in the mass production of pornography written by machines. Ownership, originality etc.


Smith obtains ‘The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism’ by the character ‘Emmanuel Goldstein’, from O’ Brien (notice Orwell was not up to producing more than a couple of pages of this fictional book within a book- who would be!)


And finally Smith reading the Times that he had previously had a hand in falsifying and now believing it… Author reduced to mere Reader, Producer reduced to mere Consumer. Little wonder he wanted to die.


The entire root structure of 1984 is based on Ownership of ideas and provenance of ideas. Like a rat endlessly going round and round in a maze Orwell tries to find some way round the central problem of totalitarian thought, private thought and owned thought. What is the central problem of Modern Totalitarian thought for Orwell?

That his own belief structure in the ownership of Ideas is the cause of it.

In desperation Winston Smith pleads with O Brien (part of Orwell’s mind) for an answer:

Why are you doing this to me?

Because I can comes the reply.


And stepping out side the novel itself, Big Brother himself comes exactly and specifically from the ownership and selling of ideas :


‘In the essay section of his novel 1985, Anthony Burgess states that Orwell got the idea for Big Brother from advertising billboards for educational correspondence courses from a company called Bennett’s, current during World War II. The original posters showed J. M. Bennett himself: a kindly-looking old man offering guidance and support to would-be students with the phrase “Let me be your father” attached. According to Burgess, after Bennett’s death, his son took over the company, and the posters were replaced with pictures of the son (who looked imposing and stern in contrast to his father’s kindly demeanour) with the text “Let me be your big brother.”


(From Wiki)


Selling ideas through a mail correspondence course. The inspiration for an evil totalitarian genius turns out to be as prosaic as the diminutive Wizard of Oz. And the entire edifice of Oceania is simply a smokescreen for Orwell to try to reconcile what for him is irreconcilable;

The ownership of Ideas leads in the end to the death of original thought.


Once you accept that all ideas are man made and can only be man made, you open the way to the ownership of ideas. Once you accept the ownership of ideas you open the way to the dictatorship of owned ideas. Once you accept the dictatorship of owned Ideas you are transformed into a modern German person. Once you are a modern Germanic person, Germanic society owns you body, mind and soul.


How can you fight back from there?








The Opposition vs. the oppositions

Imagine a constitutional democracy with two political parties and a permanent electoral majority in favour of one of those two parties. Since only one of the parties could ever be elected to power can this country can still claim to be a democracy?


In this hypothetical situation the permanent opposition still has a role to play in questioning and challenging the assumptions, ideas and policies of the majority party. If they do this in a coherent way that represents the interests and opinions of the minority, systematic opposition can force the majority party to make ‘better’ decisions and the majority in society to be aware of the ideas and opinions of the minority.


By means of constant and aggressive opposition the majority can be exposed when it has failed in the conception and execution of policy. The population at large can be made to realise when the majority party is incompetent and/or corrupt and encouraged to respond accordingly.


Under this ‘adversarial’ model the claim can be made that democracy is possible even if electoral maths do not support a regular change of government. But this system only works to the extent that the opposition is capable of, and committed to, systematic opposition to the majority. In other words it is only possible if the opposition is sufficiently organisationally and even ideologically, separate and opposed to the majority*.


But that is clearly not what we have got now in developed capitalist societies. What we do have is often understood as a Controlled Opposition model -a term usually associated with Conspiracy Theory. Head down this road and before long you are in the company of the Illuminati and Worldwide Zionism etc.


But conjectures as to the causes of failure of opposition such as these are really simply the expression of not knowing what has changed and how it has changed over the past four decades.


A serious discussion of the possibility of controlled opposition leads to two closely related questions:

To what extent is opposition ‘controlled’? and

How is opposition ‘controlled’?


The key to answering these two questions lies in understanding the dovetailing of the subjective experience of opposition and the objective needs of the system.


The objective needs of the system and the subjective experience of opposition have clearly changed. The way that political parties relate to the public and the way this relationship services the overall polity are clearly not the same as they were in the last century. So the central questions are refined to: What is the nature of the difference between now and then and: What drives it?


The Objective Needs Of The System.


The 1970’s crisis led to the merging of state and capital in the form of Monetarism and the beginnings of Financialisation. The victory of Monetarist/Marxist theory made permanent political control of the economy through control of the money supply the central plank of economics. The Anglo-Saxon world put all its eggs in the state managed capitalism basket.


This approach had an obvious problem though. Since total power over the economy was now vested in the state, if a genuine democratic opposition*(see above) did manage to get control of government it would potentially control everything. It could do incalculable damage to the interests of the elite.


This point is well Illustrated by the saga of Quantitive Easing and the ‘printing of money’ to support post 2008 collapsing financial system. Once the politically motivated mass production of money (as advocated by Monetarism), is accepted as a valid economic strategy it is only a matter of time before some bright spark advocates a ‘Peoples QE’ to benefit ordinary people instead of the banks.


A people’s QE of course, would mean the effective end of the system… it follows that such a movement can never be allowed to come to power. So in as far as a highly centralised system such as state managed capitalism is vulnerable to democratic political takeover a solution has to be found.


The solution to this centralisation problem was the Democratisation of Money and the creation of the Permanent Credit Economy. The Democratisation of Money would take care of the international element of the new system and the Permanent Credit Economy would take care of the national element.


The Democratisation of Money is the creation of an international economic alternative monetary system to the nation state system. It is stateless money. No matter what happens to any, or indeed every, state issued currency, the use of Democratised Money in the form of derivatives and other financial instruments means there is a safe haven for international finance.


At the same time The Permanent Credit economy creates a decentralised planning system; this is planning through bank credits to control national economies. (This model of decentralised planning through banks is subscribed to by economist Michael Hudson)


Now a new decentralised system is nearly in place and successfully stabilised, which means all the eggs are no longer in just one basket. Now there is some room for flexibility. This means that objectively for the first time in four decades some form of opposition is possible.


This describes the objective reality of opposition: The amount of opposition in any society at any given time is the amount of opposition that can be afforded by that society. The presence of internal opposition is an expression of power and stability. When a society is fundamentally threatened, as at time of war, it will allow no internal opposition.


But the restructured system we have now necessarily means that the nature of re-emerging opposition is fundamentally changed. How is opposition changed?


In the transition period after traditional opposition was discarded in the 1970’s and before Democratised Money and the Permanent Credit Economy were bedded down, it was not objectively possible to have any kind of opposition. It was just too dangerous. The economy and society were effectively on a war footing.


Beginning with Reagan and Thatcher, through Clinton and Blair and so on, traditional adversarial opposition has been effectively ended. But it is vitally important that you understand that not just ‘left wing’ opposition was done away with –  ALL opposition was done away with.


Under Blair and Clinton, ‘right wing’ opposition was decimated and traumatised just as violently as the ‘left wing’ had been under Thatcher and Reagan. Look back to the rise of Newt Gingrich and the emergence of the Tea Party in the USA, look back to the Conservatives in Britain under Hague and Howard, and you will realise that ‘right wing’ parties on both sides of the Atlantic basically had an extended nervous breakdown.


Traditional adversarial opposition of the kind I describe at the beginning of this piece requires a legal framework, an open media and society. But after the 1970’s the media became overtly partisan and concepts of legality were revised (e.g. Glass-Steagall repeal and liberal military intervention) so as to be unrecognisable. This affected ‘left’ and ‘right’ in opposition equally.


The Subjective Experience Of Opposition


Which brings us to the Subjective Experience Of Opposition and the rise of cultural constituencies. There is no societal support mechanism for one unified, critical opposition of the kind I described   any more. This means that existence as adversarial opposition is no longer a viable strategy for mainstream political parties in the Anglo-Saxon world. It means that a party has to get elected at any cost.


With media and broader society no longer willing to support traditional opposition the cost of failure is too high. From this perspective you can understand the subjective experience and motivation of Clinton and Blair…The great move towards the ‘centre ground’ started when politicians like Clinton and Blair became conscious of the new reality; institutionalised adversarial opposition was over. You could no longer justify your party’s continuing existence on that basis. Opposition was now to be redefined as meaning solely understudy to government; to be a government in waiting.


So how does Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders and Alexis Tsipiras and of course Donald Trump, fit into this description of the world ?


First of all they all clearly operate in stark contrast to the ‘understudy to government’ team. Compare Corbyn to his rivals in the Labour Party leadership race; compare Bernie Sanders to Hilary Clinton or   Trump to his republican rivals.


Trump, Sanders and Corbyn all represent Cultural Constituencies as opposed to mainstream understudy politicians. Mainstream politicians are seen as shifting, empty and vacuous, in thrall to corporations, whereas cultural constituency representatives are seen as the opposite of this; vital and authentic. This is because Cultural constituency representatives espouse real, absolute moral positions as opposed to the governmental compromises of understudy politicians.


This works because it is not as if the compromises required for national government are even seen as being that practical by the mass of people anymore. Most people understand that international finance and trade have comprehensively restricted the ability of national politician to act freely in pursuit of their goals, whatever the nature of those goals might be.


From this point of view, the approach of Jeremy Corbyn is not only morally superior, but has at least as good a chance of actually achieving something as the compromises of a Tony Blair.


There is much more to say about all this but for now the main message to take away is that since the elite have successfully created a decentralised financial/political system we will have many decentralised oppositions.


And the nature of these oppositions is that they will subjectively be cultural constituencies.


Because that is what the new world order can objectively support.



















GOODBYE, GOOD LUCK Or The Wrong Trousers Or Naming Subversion

‘The tartan truis or trousers date back to 1538 as a medieval style of woven tartan cloth trousers[1] as a garment preferably used during the Highland winter where the kilt would be impractical in such cold weather.[2] The word is triubhas in Scottish Gaelic. Truis or trews are anglicised spellings meaning trousers

 Tartan trews shared the fate of other items of Highland dress, including proscription under the Dress Act of 1746 that banned men and boys from wearing the truis (“Trowse”) outside of military service. The Dress Act lasted until 1782 when it was repealed under the reign of King George III.’


It seems that Russell Brand is hanging up his multimedia ‘Trews’- at least for the foreseeable future. Russell informed followers that the time has come to devote himself to sequestered learning in order to deepen his understanding of the profound changes that are taking place in the world.


In other words, Russell has realised that it might be helpful to actually study in depth what he has been talking about for the past couple of years.


Russell ended the last episode of ‘The Trews’ by assuring the world that he will be back at some point in time to continue the battle, but to tell the truth, his assurances seem a little forlorn.


I suspect that recently Russell has come to at least partially, recognise the true significance of the media onslaught that he has faced over a couple of years of battling the neo liberal corporate press. Primarily that he is one voice against many and that the enemy will come at him again and again, not as ‘single spies but in battalions’. So long as things go on this way he can’t win.


And surely this is part of a much bigger picture. We have seen endless round after round of systematic corporate media attacks on Tsipiras in Greece, Jeremy Corbyn in England and even Donald Trump in the race for the Presidential nomination in USA.


It doesn’t matter if you agree with what Brand, Tsipiras, Corbyn or Trump says, you understand that the corporate media is making concerted efforts to control the narrative and political outcome of each of these political conflicts.


The fundamental characteristic of this system is that these battles are permanent and unwinnable. No-one will ever be allowed to make a point against the order advocated by corporate media and then move on. The corporations simply wait out any insurgent offensive and then return to the attack. It is a matter of principle to make sure that opponents will not be seen to win even a minor point.


If you ever do manage to take a point against the elite you better be prepared to defend it from now until the end of time.


This is not about dialogue and it is not about give and take. And never will be. Because at a fundamental level the battle is not about what you think or even what you do- it is about who you are and who they are.


Now that we know a little more about why the elite does what it does we can have a look at how exactly it does what it does.


Name and Shame


“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

R. Buckminster Fuller


The power to name is the power to determine the terms of reference, and the terms of reference, more than any other factor, determines the outcome of the debate.


‘Financial instruments’,‘ quantitive easing’ and ‘austerity’ are not just random words picked out of the ether. They are specifically designed tools created to control the way that debate is structured.


If you accept these tools you have accepted fundamental building blocks of the discussion that are neither impartial or offer insight, but that serve the interests of one particular side of the argument.


With this in mind we can see that such familiar terms as:


‘The west’

‘the left’ and

‘the right’ and

‘the free market’


are not neutral technical ways of describing the world, they are constructed embedded mechanisms to control the way that politics and economics is discussed. ‘Austerity’, ‘derivatives’ ‘financial instruments’ have worked very well in ensuring that the way that the credit crunch is discussed conforms to the purposes of the elite.


As well as a monopoly on violence and a monopoly on creating money, the establishment elite has tried to establish and defend a monopoly on creating new word concepts. They don’t take well to anyone challenging that monopoly.


Once you understand this it gets really interesting.


Because a couple of decades ago group of people emerged in the ‘west’ who really began to understand the importance of naming. These disparate groups began to challenge the elite monopoly on naming. And their challenge to the naming monopoly, since it was introduced into a monopoly, almost immediately had a significant effect.


The naming elite initially had no effective response to this emergent challenge and in fact after two or three decades still have not managed to conclusively deal with it!


This Naming Subversion has mounted the single most effective challenge to elite methodology in nearly a century.




So are they and their achievements celebrated and emulated by all those who wish to challenge the elite power structure?


Of course not, they are vilified and hated. Probably, even by you.


Say what?


Who are these people then?


You know them as the ‘Political Correct’; you know them as ‘Cultural Marxists’.


‘Racism’ ‘sexism’ and ‘LBGT’ etc. are all relatively recent creations in the social discourse. And they have entered completely into the mainstream. They are components of a conceptual framework that has been completely absorbed by the Germanic world.


As a consequence of this absorption, the mainstream is continually forced to try to incorporate these terms and the conceptual framework they represent, into its rhetoric. And this process of forced response has changed the elite from what it was to what it is now. This is the technical reason that the post war Protestant consensus collapsed.


All of this achieved simply by employing the power of naming.


Of course there is a terrible ongoing danger for the elite here, since they can only adapt so far. As time goes on the cumulative effects of adapting to naming subversion are that the elite loses the prerogative of ruling. In other words if you stop acting like the elite, you stop being the elite. And you stop acting like the elite when you stop exercising your monopoly on naming.


An elite response to subversive naming had to be found. And the response was inevitably an attempt to control the debate by- elite naming. The elite response was to call Subversive Naming ‘Political Correctness’ and to call Subversive Namers ‘Cultural Marxists’ and to call all this type of politics ‘Identity Politics’!


And of course we all know how terrible these things are. And we all know how we instinctively recoil when we hear these terms. So now the elite have programmed an almost endless army of wind up toy soldiers to attack not only ‘PC’ but more importantly the principle behind PC.


Just like they produce an endless army of soldiers to attack Brand, Corbyn, Trump etc.


So it worked didn’t it?


(if you doubt the power that the elite naming monopoly has, try coming up with an original new name for a political phenomenon yourself)


Next time: Marketplace of Ideas