Ideology 5: Whiteism: The Bride Stripped Bare or ‘Bringing The Colour Back To Your Cheeks’….


The invisible hand of the market..


Angela Monaghan, Thursday 31 October 2013 08.12 GMT

Greece downgraded from developed to emerging market

A reminder of the work left to do in Greece has come from S&P Dow Jones Indices, which says the country no longer classifies as a developed market. Instead, the indices provider gives it emerging market status for the following reasons:

  • The Greek equity market lags behind the advancements in market practices typical of other developed markets.
  • Dramatic and consistent reduction in market size over the past few years.
  • Failed market accessibility.

Classical Greek architecture and sculpture is shown in the ‘west’ as bone white, but in fact it was brightly painted in vivid hues as can be seen here:

The modern popular Germanic vision of  the ancient Greeks depicts them  wondering around in white robes, in white buildings surrounded by white statues. You would think a Ju-ju man from the Germanic cult of psychology would have a field day with that…

Someting like this classical whitewashing seems to have happened to the modern Greek people in the past couple of decades. Under Germanic tutelage  they were endowed with the protestant work ethic, a place in NATO and the European community and all the other accoutrements of membership of the League of White Protestantism. etc.

But now it seems in contra-distinction to the masony of Greece, for the people it is the whiteness that has worn off, and Greeks have lost their status as ‘honory whites’.

They find themselves lumped in with Africans, Chinese etc as a ‘ developing’ nation. The colour has come back to the Greek cheeks as it were.

If you observe the picture above you can see how this was achieved in the traditional German manner.

And this in turn helps us to come to an understanding of Golden Dawn, supposedly a Greek facist movement that has arisen as a result of the economic corporal punishment meted out to the home of democracy. In a desperate attempt to hold onto their fading German status, both left and right have imagined a facist movement. After all, facism is the last Germanic attribute anyone in Greece can still plausibly lay claim to…..

Perry’s Cats

catsSchrodingers Cat

In Herr Schrodingers famous thought experiment a cat is placed in a sealed box together with an amount of poison that will be released by an episode of radioactive decay. Theoretically the cat might be alive and dead at the same time. We cannot know how the cat sees things and we cannot know how we will see the cat. Cue long discussion about the nature of indeterminate reality and many possible realities etc.

Contrast this with Perry’s Cats which is a thought experiment to explain what happens as the cultural/political/economic system we are in implodes. Unlike Schrodingers Cat; Perry’s Cats are based on readily observable reality.

Imagine a man has several kittens that he does not know what to do with. He cannot give them away as nobody wants them. His wife has told him that there is no way that she is going to put up with a hoard of useless animals lying around the house, having to be fed and of course, inevitably reproducing themselves in even greater numbers.

The man decides to relieve himself of the problem in the traditional way by placing the kittens in a sturdy burlap sack and placing the sack in the nearest canal.

He puts the kittens in the sack, ties the neck of the sack securely and throws the sack into the dark, freezing water of the canal.

What exactly is happening inside the sack the moment it hits the water?

The answer is that the cats inside the bag begin to struggle. But:

1. They cannot see or understand exactly where they are because they are in a sack.
2. They cannot claw their way out of the sack.
3. There is nothing but other cats inside the sack.

Although each cat acts as an individual, the group as a whole can be split into two thought groups:

1. The first thought group decides that the main obstacle to individual survival is all the other cats in the bag. It therefore resolves to kill all the other cats as a means towards survival.

2. The second thought group type responds to the attack

In the darkness there is slashing and squealing and spitting and the overwhelming stench of cat faeces as the animals void themselves in fear and rage. The violence becomes ever more desperate and frenzied as the freezing cold closes around them, the sack sinks and  the most violent cat , the ‘victor’, is the one that drowns

Inside the bag there is only each other, and so it is each other they attack.

Any thoughts of the man or his wife it might have been possible for the cats to have, are lost in the final paroxysm of violence.

You might ask yourself :

‘Why were they so stupid and weak as to allow themselves to be put in the sack in the first place?’

And the answer is: because they were a bunch of f*cking pussies.

‘Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed by the masses’


Ideology 4- WHITEISM: Unbelievable or An Appetite for Wonder Bread

Bobo1De heathen back dey ‘pon de wall!
De heathen back, yeah, ‘pon de wall!
De heathen back dey ‘pon de wall!
De heathen back, yeah, ‘pon de wall!

Rise up fallen fighters;
Rise and take your stance again.
‘cos)he who fights and run away
live(s)to fight another day.
With de heathen back dey ‘pon de wall!

‘The Heathen’, Bob Marley

In an interview with Bill Maher on USA T.V.  Dickie Dawkins, Archbishop of Saxon Heathenism has offered us a glimpse into the midden that lies where his soul would be

D.D. is convinced that Barry Obama is an ‘atheist’ (makes a change from Muslim I suppose), an intimation for which he cannot offer any evidence, it’s just a feeling, a matter of faith, you might say. Why would he have such a feeling? you might ask. Why would it matter to him?

In the interview, Maher tells us that young Dickie was religious, an Anglican in fact, hoping to pass the assumption, hopefully unchallenged, that Anglicanism is something to do with Christianity. But as the name suggests ‘Anglicanism’ is clearly something primarily to do with Angles and Angleland. In other words, it is specifically a race cult.

It is forbidden for a Catholic to be King or Queen of Angleland and therefore head of the Anglican church, directly as a result of the rise of Anglicanism.

Which brings us DD’s next article of faith, that John Kennedy was really an atheist!
Of course, DD would really like to say that he believes JK was an Anglican, or at least a Protestant, after all, the king is forbidden to be anything else. But he can’t quite summon the courage for this, so he settles on atheist.

Atheist is code for German pagan.

The Germanic narrative goes:
NW Europe converted to Christianity over the period of the first millennium. After a while the Germanic people of NW Europe discovered that Catholicism was wrong to a greater or lesser degree and set out to reform it. The movement for reform led to a split and the creation of Protestantism which in turn splintered into differing forms of Christianity. After a while, as a result of progress and enlightenment, the protestants discovered that there is no such thing as God after all and became atheists. So it’s all natural and inevitable evolution and progress up to the point of atheism.

Let me offer you an alternative interpretation of events.

Christianity spread out from the Mediterranean northwards and westwards like a tsunami. The further spread from the epicenter, the more its force dissipated. By the time it got to the edges of North-West Europe it’s power was relatively weak. And like a wave, once it had reached its maximum point it began to recede.

This interpretation explains why only Germanic populations have become Protestant. The only alternative explanation is that Germanic people are inherently more progressive than Southern populations which brings us back to the Anglican race cult.

During the interview DD opines that : ‘People can’t bear clarity’. I wonder if he can see the clarity of his statement as he recalls an episode of early religiosity:

‘I thought this was calling me to promote.. not necessarily the Christian religion, but some kind of religion..’

Indeed. That religion turned out to be German Paganism.

Watch it here:

Say: Woe to the downpressors:
They’ll eat the bread of sorrow!
Woe to the downpressors:
They’ll eat the bread of sad tomorrow

‘Guiltiness’ Bob Marley

Ideology 3: The Great Mooncake Mystery and the Straw Dog


How you can have your cake if somebody else is providing free biscuits in the meantime


The proof of the mooncake is in the eating (or not as the case may be..)

Here is a post that appeared on the Max Keiser site. The ‘mystery’ of how everyone could seem to get something out of mooncakes without actually making any, perfectly illustrates the point I have been making in the past two articles.

The China Money Report: Repurchasing mooncake discount coupons
Posted on October 1, 2013 by Stacy Herbert — 22 Comments ↓

Stacy Summary: This is fascinating. I’ve got to get Max to comment on this. We need a weekly Google+ Hangout! There just isn’t enough time in the 13 minutes we have with each Keiser Report first half. Anyway, to me, this story really highlights the saying from Karl Menger (as told by Sandeep Jaitly) that ‘value cannot exist outside of human consciousness.’
Nine ways to make money ‘Chinese style;’ number two: Repurchasing mooncake discount coupons
Mooncakes are more widely presented as gifts than actually consumed during the traditional Mid-Autumn Festival each year and manufacturers have found a way to make extra profits without needing to go to the trouble of making any cakes. A baker can print a coupon for its mooncakes with a face value of 100 yuan (US$16.30) and sell it to a retailer for 65 yuan (US$10.60). The retailer then sells it to customer A for 80 yuan (US$13), who in turn presets it to customer B as a gift. Customer B then sells the coupon for 40 yuan (US$6.50) to a street peddler, who would in turn sells it back to the manufacturer for 50 yuan (US$8.65). The manufacturer thus makes 15 yuan (US$2.45) on the coupon and all parties are happy, having either made a small sum or given face without any actual product changing hands at any point.
Mooncakes are just one manifestation of this scheme — there is a market in China for discount coupons on most goods.

Andy Perry says:
October 2, 2013 at 9:05 am
The clue is in the title: ways to MAKE money. This is an example of Non Governmental Money. Like all conjuring tricks it works because you fail to see the trick being set up before you began paying attention. The NOMINAL value (exchange rate) of the mooncake dollar was 100 yuan. This NOMINAL value relates to the value of the mooncake itself which may or may not actually exist. This is exactly the same con as a mug with a betting slip thinking he is gambling on the ability of a horse to win a race when in fact he is really gambling on the ability of the bookie to pay him! So at no time was the mooncake dollar worth actually worth 100 yuan, it was only ever actually claimed that the mooncake was worth 100 yuan, and since the moonacake was never actually produced, consumed and eaten I guess we will never know whether it was or wasn’t will we?
CRACKERNOMICS is just a cheap card trick


Andy Perry says:
October 2, 2013 at 11:18 am
I just thought of a way to make it crystal clear.
The specific method by which all Democratised Money is called into existence is to use the price of the commodity that backs it as the initial exchange rate for the issued notes.
So the mooncake maker uses the nominal price/value of the actual (non-existent) mooncake as the opening exchange rate for the notes. A credit agency uses the actual (non-existent) value of a lump of mortgages as the opening exchange rate of a (NGM money) derivative. This is the specific, actual trick that makes it possible.

Nat says:
October 2, 2013 at 11:37 am
Nice posts Andy Perry.

Nat says:
October 2, 2013 at 11:50 am
The mooncake is never marked to market, the book value is never tested in a competitive market to see if it actually holds up. If no-one is eating the cake, there is no test to see if it is worth the $16 compared to the next baker’s mooncake at $12.
This mooncake coupon scheme is one to completely avoid competition or any assessment of value at all.
A method also fully exploited on a grand scale by the banks.
I guess Customer A is the slave here – a slave to social convention which means they feel obliged to pay $10 to the “social convention” god else be whipped by the rest of society.
Art, music and cultural revolutions – hippy movement, punk movement etc – have been very important in freeing us from such enslaving cultural obligations. Flipping the bird is probably the most important symbol of our times – there should be a big brass middle finger in every western city.


My Note:
Nat is not quite right when he says
‘I guess Customer A is the slave here – a slave to social convention which means they feel obliged to pay $10 to the “social convention” god else be whipped by the rest of society.’
It was not social convention that prevented customer A testing the valuation. In the case of mortgage backed derivatives there was nothing you could test. These were sliced and diced fruit salads of different real mortgages.
They never could have existed as a priced commodity in the real world!
How could you test the reality that someone would or would not pay a given mortgage, (which is what you were really betting on)?. If you could not do that you could not test the valuation at point of sale placed on the derivative.
The trick is that a derivative, like other kinds of money democratised or state, cannot be priced because it has no intrinsic value. It only has an exchange value.
It could only ever have been money, so that is what it is -democratised money



Robert J Shiller is one of three economists who won the Nobel prize for Economics this year. The other two were a couple of Chicago School Friedmanite pinheads. What all three had in common is a belief in the nasty monetarist state and therefore no love of free market capitalism.
The Nobel Committee is running a tough cop/soft cop scam with Shiller playing the role of slightly nicer cop.
All Shillers talk of ‘productive’ contributions to society and condemnation of Vincent Price style feudal financial lords is there to justify a non market solution. Monetarism meant the death of any semblence of free markets.
So it seems strange on the face of it , that Shiller would rely so heavily on a crude, strident, almost cartoonish expression of capitalist ideology as a means of understanding their own nostrums and their consequences in the form of the Credit Crunch.
But ideology is most laid bare right at the moment of its maximum emergency.
And as I said in ‘Crackernomics’, they worship the straw dog most fervently at the moment it is cast on the fire….

Crackernomics: Ideology 2

Ideology 2


Ideology 2

Without a Paddle


You have nothing to lose but your chains…..

A Brief Recap on Ideology:

Ideology is not perceived in the generality of thought.

The extent and nature of ideology only becomes apparent in times of emergency.

The greater and more immediate the emergency, the clearer the expression of ideology.

To the extent that the emergency is perceived to be greater or more immediate by different sections of the population, they will respond more or less ideologically.

Capitalist ideology was designed to overthrow feudalism and is specifically developed for this task.

Capitalist ideology has to portray all enemies as Feudalistic.

Apart from periodic emergencies, there is one other instance when ideology becomes overt and apparent: When it starts to break down

Now we have got that out of the way we can have a look at something Dave Harrison at Trade With Dave took aim at:

Nobel prize winner Robert J Shiller asks:

NEW HAVEN – Are too many of our most talented people choosing careers in finance – and, more specifically, in trading, speculating, and other allegedly “unproductive” activities?

Shiller observes that

‘ the increase in financial activity has taken place in the more speculative fields, at the expense of traditional finance… intermediation (lending, including traditional banking)’  

So Shiller is clearly worried that good old, traditional usury is being replaced by something not half as morally uplifting. This is not to say that the new areas are to be banned, far from it:

 ‘We surely need some people in trading and speculation. But how do we know whether we have too many?’

(At this point Dave Harrison asks the question: Isn’t the market supposed to decide? Which points us to the nub of the problem. But we will get to that a little down the road…)

Shiller characterises a (significant?) amount of this new activity as ‘rent seeking’:

‘a significant amount of speculation and deal-making is pure rent-seeking. In other words, it is wasteful activity that achieves nothing more than enabling the collection of rents on items that might otherwise be free’

And what is wrong with ‘rent seeking’?:

…The classic example of rent-seeking is that of a feudal lord (my emphasis), who installs a chain across a river that flows through his land and then hires a collector to charge passing boats a fee (or rent of the section of the river for a few minutes) to lower the chain. There is nothing productive about the chain or the collector.

Shiller goes on:

‘…The lord has made no improvements to the river and is helping nobody in any way, directly or indirectly, except himself.

…All he is doing is finding a way to make money from something that used to be free. If enough lords along the river follow suit, its use may be severely curtailed.’

Well, well the ‘feudal lord’ has popped up again. Enter Vincent Price all decked in ermine, with a falcon on his wrist, perched on his horse, sneering down at the Saxon peasants.

And dastardly Sir Vincent has hired a lackey to raise and lower the chain. Strangely, only a little later Shiller complains that Sir Vincent has done nothing to benefit anyone else. Surely by hiring, our feudal lord has provided a ‘valuable employment opportunity for an entry level position in the waterway management business’-  Or is job creation like this only to be applauded when it is a capitalist doing the hiring?

Shiller also argues that Sir Vincent has done nothing to improve the waterway, which begs the question as to what kind of ‘improvements’ he would suggest- a medieval roast boar fast food franchise so that waiting travellers could have a snack?. Tarmac on the banks of the river perhaps?

And how would this tie in to the modern exhortation for each of us to lower the carbon footprint? Isn’t a simple chain the most ‘environmentally conscious’ way of Sir Vincent carrying out his ‘custodianship’ of the river?

Finally Shiller suggests that rent seeking activities extract a price on something that might otherwise be ‘free’. I suppose that if you imagine a eight foot fishing boat going down the river under oar power you could argue that its passage is ‘free’. But that is hardly likely under capitalist progress is it? We would be much more likely to see a fifty foot coal barge spewing out pollution and dirt, killing the fish and small animals that live in the river as it progresses. But of course that is not the boat owners problem is it? The future wellbeing of the river is zero-cost or ‘free’ to him.

I make these observations to point out how far capitalist ideology has already decayed. I don’t doubt this ‘classic’ capitalist parable of river and the chain is repeated over and over to post-graduate classes across the western world, but I don’t doubt also that contemporary students are every bit as sceptical of the parable, its logic and its values as I am.

If the parable itself is a little threadbare, Shiller does not fare any better in its application. Shiller makes his case against the purveyors of derivatives thus:

Those in “other finance” …… contribute no more to society than a lord who installs a chain across a river.


Ever since the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealed Glass-Steagall, bankers have acted increasingly like feudal lords. The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 introduced a measure somewhat similar to the Glass-Steagall prohibition by imposing the Volcker Rule, which bars proprietary trading by commercial banks, but much more could be done.

The phrase ‘somewhat similiar’ begs the question; What is different between Glass Steagall and Dodd Frank? Shiller asserts that :

‘To many observers, Glass-Steagall made no sense.,,

(as opposed to Dodd-Frank I suppose?)

and claims that many reasonable types ask the question:

‘…. Why shouldn’t banks be allowed to engage in any business they want, at least as long as we have regulators to ensure that the banks’ activities do not jeopardize the entire financial infrastructure?’

So to return to Dave Harrison’s original point albeit in slightly modified form:

Why shouldn’t banks do as they please  and let the markets judge?

Or why do we need the specific forms of regulation that we have ended up with?

Shillers ideological response to the emergency is inevitably to paint the new enemy in feudal colours. ‘Feudal lords of finance’. But in reality this problem is entirely novel. The problem is the democratisation of money.

The market decides on the value of any given commodity by means of price. In a market system, price is an expression of value. In order for price to have meaning it has to be executed through a sale. In other words, the price is the monetary value at which a sale takes place. If I ask for 1 million dollars for my bicycle this is not the price of my bicycle The price of my bicycle is the amount at which it sells. If somebody actually buys my bicycle for the more modest and reasonable price of $100  they then have the opportunity to test the validity eg. the value of this price. $100 is the price at which the sale is executed and the exchange valued. But it is also the price at which the valuation is tested. Mark to market.

However the process of buying, selling and testing does not hold true when money itself is the subject of the transaction. As you are aware, money has no intrinsic value. As I explained earlier this is as true for gold as it is for paper fiat money. You cannot take gold or paper currency into the bank of England and swap it for a part of the Yorkshire dales etc. It has no claim on the wealth of England. The same would be true of the Dollar the Euro, the Yen in their respective territories.

Now supposing as a resident of England you wanted to obtain some dollars for the purpose of going on holiday in Disneyland. You go down to the bank and ‘buy’ dollars at 2 dollars to 1 pound (This was some time ago!). You believe that this is the ‘price’ and therefore the ‘value’ of dollars.

But as we said above, money has no value. Therefore its value cannot be discovered by price. If it cannot have a price, you cannot buy it! The simple proof of this is that you cannot ‘buy’ 2 dollars from an exchange beaureau and then decide to take them to the Federal Reserve  to exchange for a piece of the Grand Canyon, as they have no value! The ‘value’ of the dollar cannot be tested, because it has none. The valuation you gave it cannot be tested. So there is no mark to market. There is only an agreed rate of exchange.

The market cannot test the valuation, so the market cannot decide on the value.

Derivatives are privately issued democratised money every bit as sovereign and foreign as the Dollar is in relation to the Pound. Like all instances of money they have no claim on value in themselves. Which means their assigned value in nominal and cannot be tested. Which means they cannot be priced. Which means the market cannot decide how valuable they are. They can only be exchanged.

Allowing of the issuing of more than one kind of currency within a national territory is a novel development. Just as novel as the Twin Towers attack was. And although the repeal of Glass-Steagall paved the way for the introduction of derivatives, Glass-Steagall itself was not legislated to prevent the creation of derivatives. This is the important difference between Glass Steagall and Dodd-Frank. Glass-Steagall was drafted with no knowledge of the existance of demcratised money but Dodd-Frank was. For this reason Shiller observes

… the main advantages of the original Glass-Steagall Act may have been more sociological than technical, changing the business culture and environment in subtle ways. By keeping the deal-making business separate, banks may have focused more on their traditional core business.

He specifically says that Glass-Steagal did not have a ‘technical‘ purpose in controlling financial instruments like derivatives and this is for the very good reason they had not been invented!

Further, Shiller tacitly admits that the market mechanism is unable to value derivatives although he is unable to say why:

Speculative activities have plusses and minuses, much that is good and some that is bad, and these are very difficult to quantify.

It is precisely for this reason that he tries to suggest a secondary related metric as an indirect means of estimating the value of derivatives eg. the number of people involved in producing them and then using this as the benchmark for an exchange rate between democratised money and state money:

economic research has not yet permitted us to estimate the value to society of so many of our best and brightest making their careers in the currently popular kinds of “other finance.”


We need to be very careful about regulations that impinge on such activities, but we should not shy away from making regulations once we have clarity.

In other words as soon as we can figure out what the f*ck this democratised ‘derivatives’ stuff should be worth, we can fix the exchange rate because the market will never be able to fix a price.

The final part will be

The Great Mooncake Mystery


Ideology: The Nobel Prize Party and The Masque of the Red Death


Part 1:   Price Discovery
Sometimes the long way round is the short way round. Dave Harrison sent this link while pointing out that Nobel prize winner Robert J Shiller seems to have a shaky grip, (to say the least!) of the purpose and function of markets. Which leads me to wonder what exactly is going on the Shillers mind..

..and the Nobel Prize goes to Glass-Steagall 2.0

This is the first of two parts.

‘ …An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things…a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a “received consciousness” or product of socialization(sic)).
Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political or economic tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.’

The subject of what constitutes an ideology and who has one is a loaded subject.

Loaded because in Germanic societies the idea of ideology rests on the concept of a ‘received consciousness’ (See above), of being told what to think as opposed to ‘free will’.

Since we are assured that we have ‘free will’ (refer to ‘farm fresh’ previously) it follows that we, (as opposed to the enemies of ‘our way of life’), have no ideology. Often ‘western’ politicians insult each other by claiming that this or the other position is ‘ideologically motivated’, which implies it is somehow foreign, or alien in origin. The ideological dogma, (look up the origin of dogma), of ‘no ideology’ is repeated faithfully in every book, film and newspaper and by every official outlet and any one who questions the idea that we have no ideology will be branded a heretic and dealt with.

The ‘no ideology’ perception gains strength from the fact that the practical application of ideology is unseen in the day to day world around us. Ideology operates specifically in relation to thought and since most of the mundane things we do don’t require any conscious thought at all, it is clear that there are very few opportunities to consider what we are thinking and why we are thinking it.

It is not obvious that ideology is being employed in the purchase of Fruit Loops or dog food. Even paying taxes and obeying the traffic lights are couched in the language of practical compliance. And as I have mentioned elsewhere the very purpose of the Democracy Brand itself is to exclude thought

The existence and function of ideology only ever really becomes obvious when faced with a novel situation, one which requires ‘original’ thought or modification of existing patterns of thought. The more radical the modification and the quicker it has to be carried out, the clearer the expression of ideology is revealed.

Two striking relatively recent examples of this are:
The Twin towers attack on 9/11 and the Crash of 2008. Both were novel, emergency situations requiring an innovative response.

The Twin Towers was novel as the most significant foreign terrorist attack on American soil to date. Since it appeared to be evident that foreign terrorists were now capable of infecting sizeable civilian casualties in the Homeland, the attitude to and understanding of, foreign terrorists would have to change.
As for the crash of 2008, if you don’t know what was novel about it, read ‘Crackernomics’. Its free, because I want to tell you something not sell you something.

We should also note here that it was remarkable that the Germanic ‘left’ produced no clear separate response in either of these cases. There was no distinctive left response to 9/11 and there was no distinctive left response to the Crash
Why is this?
The only possible answer is that the left did not have a separate ideology from which to conjure a separate, distinctive response! Interesting as this is, for the moment I want to confine myself to the mainstream response that did take place.

The Twin towers brought to public attention the persona of Osama Bin Laden and his shadowy organisation; Al Qaeda. (shadowy Al Qaeda, shadow banking system, how come all our enemies are shadowy?). From the Free Press we learned of the brutal, medieval, Islamic belief system that motivated them. We found out all about the routine, often cruel, oppression of women and girls- a standard part of Al Qaeda life. We learned that they are anti modern, in fact pre enlightenment in their attitudes to society, science and of course, homosexuals, etc etc.
In other words, a made to measure feudal boogie man draped in white robes, plotting the advent of a new dark ages from his cave in the Afghanistan mountains.

And how do we fight this dreadful feudal apparition? Why, more democracy and more capitalism of course!

In a similar vein, in the aftermath of the Crash we began to hear tales of a ‘shadowy’ cadre of financial lords that were manipulating the system to produce (perhaps deliberately), the collapse. Apparently they had become Too Big Too Fail, cut off from democratic control and beyond the law. The name that Max Keiser among others gave to this phenomenon was Neo Feudalism.

And how were we to fight this dreadful apparition of financial feudalism? Why, more democracy,more capitalism etc etc

In both cases, under pressure, capitalist ideology produced a characterisation of the enemy as ‘feudal’. Is this a co-incidence?

The purpose of Ideology is to create and sustain a framework for common thought and action. It has been employed against a variety of ‘villains’ over the past decades from Russia to Islam, the latest being the Chinese. This apparent variety of enemies leads to a confusion between the actual nature of capitalist ideology and the modern applications for its use. To understand the core nature of capitalist ideology you must ask yourself:

When was the ideology of capitalism actually created, and for what purpose?

The ideology of capitalism was created to overcome NW European feudalism which it battled to replace. The cult of Protestantism was specifically developed in opposition to Catholic Christianity. The cult of capitalist ideology which came into existence in tandem with the Germanic pagan cult of Protestantism, developed its morality and its conception of the individual and society in opposition to feudal Catholic Christianity. It is specifically designed for this purpose. Since it was designed for a specific purpose it follows that capitalist ideology is only truly effective in this context. This leads us to the well known aphorism that :

To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail

To a protestant capitalist every enemy turns out to be a cross between Vincent Price in the ‘Masque of the Red Death’ and the Pope! Imagine Vincent Price with brown makeup and arch pencilled eyebrows playing the part of Osama Bin Laden and you start to see how the ideology is actually constructed.

Every external enemy of the ‘west’ has been and will always be:

A feudal strong man
Surrounded by feudal warlords
Oppressing the people
By violence and
A religious cult
The people are brainwashed or terrified into submission
The strongman has secret ‘shadowy’ agents in our territory!
We must defend our ‘way of life’!

Not because this description is true or accurate but because this is what capitalist ideology was created to prevail over.

(Now take a moment to think about how the right portrays Obama…)

NB. Spotted this, perfectly illustrates the point, read it in mind of what is above…


I got the following comments from Dave Harrison @ Trade With Dave.

It seems to me that Dave has a talent for getting to where the intellectual action is so it is doubly useful for me to reply to his observations.

Dave Harrison commented on About

Hello Andy: I have found your writings to be quite informative and look forward to reading more. I have learned a few things for sure and found your description of the transformation from Keynes to MMT particularly enlightening and a refreshingly new take that really highlights the craftiness of the Clintonian ethic.

Here’s a question for you. Isn’t your statement “You are responsible for everything that has gone wrong” essentially Marxist in nature. Isn’t it the equivalent of Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty” or Sartre’s “No Exit” in that “you” are responsible and in the absence of forgiveness, then “you” must transfer the accountability over to the state because “you” simply cannot carry the burden of Sartre’s “Hell is other people” or the Hegelian “Other” or the quantum nature of Rosenthal, Soros’ reflexivity or Shaw’s Pygmalion.

I’ve written extensively about this thesis on my blog. You can simply search “Marx” or “existentialism” or “Isaiah Berlin” or “Sartre” to see that I have a consistent dialogue along these lines at so my assertion should be fairly clear.

I really like where you are going with your ideas. I feel that you are bridging a gap that is intentionally being created but that is easily filled in with technology within a framework of triple entry accounting and means testing of everything. I have written quite a bit about Mervyn King’s Divorced Currency Model and would be curious to learn if you believe that it jives with your democratization of money meme.

Kind Regards,

Dave Harrison

Hi Dave,

‘You are responsible for everything that has gone wrong. After all, this is a democracy so in the final analysis you must be’.

Although the idea that financialised capitalism socialises losses and privatises profits has only relatively recently become popular, the truth underlying this meme is anything but recent. In fact it has always been fundamental to the way that Germanic societies are structured.

I know you have written on this and related topics on a number of occasions, pointing out in particular that we are often reminded of our share of the public debt but not of public assets. You have also observed that financialisation as it is unfolding has the purpose of irreversibly removing publics at large from access to the sovereign wealth of their respective nations. If we look at the mass privatisation programs in Greece etc. this seems self evident.

There has always been sovereign debt but no sovereign wealth, at least not in the sense of the physical wealth of the nation. The ‘fiat’ money argument, that the monetary value of our collective wealth has some relationship to the value of the actual national territory has been debunked over and over again, so we don’t need to labour the point. A dollar note cannot be taken into  the Federal reserve and traded in for a piece of the Grand Canyon.  But neither could a piece of Gold.

In this polity we have never had a collective relationship to sovereign wealth intermediated by the state. Instead, the state arbitrates and guarantees a private relationship to sovereign wealth.

Our form of government is like the management in a casino. In a casino the management will not guarantee you a win on the tables. That is a private matter. (Between you and whom I wonder?). However, they will guarantee that you are not attacked on your way out of the door and relieved of your winnings, (well sometimes anyway). And they certainly guarantee that they will make you pay if you lose! And of course they take a cut of every piece of the action.

But perhaps most importantly in the casino if you lose it is your fault. Of course, every so often one or more aggrieved punter can be heard to shout;  ‘the tables are rigged!’ but everyone thinks ‘Well they would say that wouldn’t they?’.

A share of the national debt has always been guaranteed to every citizen but a share of the the national ‘gain’ collectively or individually  has not- the contract we have with our government does not include the national sovereign wealth.  It is important to emphasise that this is not a modern phenomenon, neither is it temporary or open to negotiation.

By way of illustration let’s do a thought experiment. Say you wanted to divide the American real estate up between its citizens. And it worked out for the sake of argument that everyone got a hundred acres each. What would happen to those generations that came after? Would they be excluded or would there have to be a reallocation? If there was a reallocation what about the fact that some of the previously allocated land would have been improved and increased in value while some had not. How would you account for this? the only way would be to INTRODUCE MONETARY VALUE AS A MEANS OF COMPARISON!

Any attempt to get a purchase on the actual physical wealth of a nation and we fall through a side door and back into the world of money which we have previously agreed has no relationship with the actual physical territory! (Sorry about all the exclamation marks- they are meant to indicate laughter on my part)

We have no part of the nation by virtue of our citizenship. We have no part of the nation by virtue of our ownership of money. So what does ‘nation’ and ‘economy’ confer on us?

The ‘national economy’ is in reality a virtual territory with virtual boundaries and virtual resources. All of which support the virtual existence of its citizens. The nation is an abstract dream kingdom whose physical presence is a little piece of coloured rag fluttering in the breeze and a piece of paper in your pocket….It is a substitute for real territory, for a relationship with real territory; for a real existence. In a world where we had a real relationship with physical territory there would be no such thing as an ‘economy’ and a ‘nation’. We would not need them.

Here we have our citizen in his 100sq ft apartment chewing on mangetout imported from Kenya and strawberries from Portugal, tip tapping on his mobile device told where he can and cannot walk what he can and cannot look at… Divorced from the land he stands on, paying money for a place to sit down.

This is where  control really comes from. This is the source of oppression. Not Marxism, not paternalism. The Dream Kingdom – the national economy.

And the religion of the Dream kingdom is Democracy. And Democracy is really just another brand.

Brands are created and managed to provoke a reflex, a response in the marketplace. Corporations want immediate positive thoughts to be provoked by a brand, not time rationally thinking about what each branded product actually can or cannot do for you. If brand creation and management are successful the consumer should think about the successful brand and not the product itself at all.

Democracy as a brand concept is widely regarded as something to do with elections, civilisation, ‘why we are better than them’, ‘why I am lucky to live here’  etc. There are parallels to this in the world of mass produced food. For instance ‘Farm fresh’ is a brand concept

‘Farms’ and ‘freshness’ are both real things. But ‘Farm Fresh!’ is a brand concept. ‘Farm fresh’ although it refers to farms and freshness, in fact has nothing to do with either of them. The relationship is inferred in the consumers mind

In exactly the same way ‘Freedom’ and ‘will’ are both real things; but ‘Free Will’ is a brand concept sold to us like soap powder….

‘Try New American Democracy! Now with added ‘Free Will!’

(For ‘whiter whites’?)’

Back to the  Democracy Brand concept. Ask the question: what are the specific instances of democracy that make up the brand concept?.

They are: Classical Greek democracy and  Modern Capitalist democracy or more accurately

Mediterranean slave democracy and

Germanic land democracy.

are the real precursors that the Democracy Brand is based on.

Actual examples of democracy need the following things to exist:

A free resource

An agreement to exploit that resource

A set of secondary agreements to support the initial agreement

‘FREE’ RESOURCE People in Asia Minor and surrounding areas (otherwise known as ‘victims) Catholic Church land in N Europe
AGREEMENTNegative Liberty To be free to kidnap, rape, murder etc members of slave races To be free to obtain land by means of deceit, robbery, barter etc
SECONDARY AGREEMENTSPositive liberty Not to kidnap rape murder another citizens slaves without permission from the state Not to decieve rob or barter for another citizens land without permission from the state

You will notice the references to ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ liberty. This disposes of Isaiah Berlins supposed dichotomy between them. Laughably, Berlin tries to source part of his argument in ‘classical’ thought as though it really has anything to do with it. No doubt Berlin would argue that we can only really understand the Big Mac by referencing mediaeval circus culture based on the observation that Ronald McDonald is a clown.

With regards to your comments on Mervyn King and Divorced Money I take it as further evidence that as I say, ‘Trade With Dave’ gets to where the action is at. I think the evidence and your analysis absolutely confirms the creation of Democratised Money.

Now I have got a question for you:

Why is nobody else waking up to this?