You should familiarise yourself with the law of conservation of matter and the law of conservation of energy.
Both of these scientific ‘laws’ express the same basic idea:
That the amount of inputs in any given reaction and the amount of outputs from that given reaction, must balance. In other words, every element of a given reaction or process must be accounted for.
Although these ‘laws’ are often characterised as being ‘scientific’ in nature, in fact they come from a much older intellectual tradition; that of Christianity.
The entire concept of Christianity is based on two central core principles.
The first principle is that any particular incident can only ever occur once and is therefore unique.
The second principle is that every incident, process and event that has ever occurred is recorded down to the most infinitesimal detail and that the totality of calculation involving all this detail will be taken to be the final meaning/accounting of everything. Everything can and will be accounted for.
These are two foundational concepts that science directly stole from Christianity. (Although scientists would have you believe they ‘created’ them!). Together they make up the philosophy of rational accounting. This philosophy of rational accounting presents a fundamental problem for the creators and propagandists of the Germanic cult of capitalism.
It means that matter or ‘wealth’ cannot be created or destroyed in the sense of being brought into, or taken out of, any given process or reaction. Everything on the left hand of the equation must be accounted for on the right hand of the equation. If it is missing it is because you failed to account for it.
This means that ‘wealth creation’ in the sense of creating something cannot rationally exist. If wealth is present on the right hand of an equation it must have been present on the left hand of the equation. If wealth creation cannot exist, then ‘wealth creators’ cannot exist. So there cannot be any such thing as capitalism or any justification for capitalism.
By way of a simple example:
An iron smelting plant is in operation and claims to transform iron ore into usable steel and therefore ‘create wealth’. If we take into account the pollution and destruction of environment involved in the smelting process and we adequately account for this and other left hand costs, we find that in fact this melting plant has not created any wealth or any matter of any kind, but in fact simply transformed parts of the existing environment into something else. No wealth has been created.
The trick behind this, is to undervalue the preliminary imports – the land, the environment, the labour et cetera and to correspondingly overvalue the output: the ‘wealth’ that has been created. Turning healthy useful corn into ‘Cheetos’ counts as wealth production!!
The Whole World Similies With You
Let us look more closely at the value of inputs, for instance the value of iron ore. The value of any particular portion of iron ore can only be rationally valued in comparison with the total amount of all iron ore.
If you were to say that 1 pound of iron ore is as valuable as six eggs you are making a poetic comparison, expressing a SIMILIE not an accurate fact. There is no rational relationship between a lump of iron and an egg and there never can be any rational relationship between a lump of iron and an egg because there is no rational point of comparison.
(This is an indicator of the value problem which comprises the third part of my general theory of money. I will return to this later).
There is no rational relationship between a lump of iron and an egg but there is a rational relationship between a lump of iron and the totality of all iron available. We can say that any one piece of iron represents a proportion of all total iron.
If there were 100 tons of iron available on earth, then one ton of iron would represent 1% of all the available iron and this would be its true demonstrable, rational, proportionate value.
But this presents an immediate and obvious problem: we have no idea of how much iron is actually available and can only provide a an estimate. It follows that we can only present an estimate of the value of any given piece of iron. Since it is only an estimate, is open to a bit of ‘creative accounting’…
But although creative accounting can paper over some of the more obvious gaps in the capitalist fraud, the more intelligent Germans realised that this could not form the basis for a long term strategy.
They realised that they were playing a game of cat and mouse they were bound to lose in the end. The longer the game went on, and the more information that became available, the more clearly people would begin to see that the estimates of value that were given to steel and wheat and air were clearly fraudulent.
The more clearly people began to get an idea of the TOTAL amount of any given thing, the more clearly they would realise that the present valuation of it was undervalued and just as importantly the previous estimates were even more fraudulent!
This is the true meaning behind the battle between environmentalism and its opponents…
And then Germanic capitalists had a stroke of ‘genius’. Which actually means they simply reverted to their fundamental nature. They decided to turn everything back to front, inside out and upside down.
Why wait for the inevitable exposure and condemnation when the accounts became due? Why not instead START with the accounts and work backwards??!! And this is exactly and precisely how capitalism and capitalist democracy was brought into being.
A capitalist corporation first produces a final profit and then promises to work towards it. Of course, it usually fails and resolving the consequences of this failure is called capitalist economics.
A capitalist political party first produces a set of intended results and then promises to work towards it. Of course it usually fails and resolving the consequences of this failure is called capitalist politics.
But the key advantage of this process, insane as it seems, is that there is no point where the capitalist corporation or the capitalist economic party is actually HELD TO ACCOUNT in the literal sense of the word.
Because they persuaded the investors and the voters to endorse the accounts they were given before the process even began. They made you just as culpable as they are.
Underpinning Einstein’s theory of relativity is the philosophical argument that it is both possible and desirable to view a particular event from a multiplicity of points of view to gain a comprehensive understanding of the processes embodied in that event.
If this is the case, then it might also be argued that it is both possible and desirable to view any particular historical and economic event from a multiplicity of points of view. This would be as revolutionary a development in economics as Einstein’s theory was in physics.
Both classic economics and the Marxist variant, promote a singular subjective perspective on structure and meaning of economic systems. Their purpose, openly stated or covertly implied, is to promote the political, moral and cultural system they are representative of.
The formal purpose of capitalist economics is to run the system at its most efficient , it’s covert aim to justify capitalism as the dominant system. The overt purpose of Marxism is to produce a critique of capitalism that will lead to its being abandoned as a consequence of its internal contradictions. Its covert aim is to justify historical attempts to create alternatives to capitalism.
In order to work, both capitalist economics and Marxism need a protagonist, an archetypal hero from whose singular perspective we can see the world and whose actions we can subjectively identify with. This is the real identity politics.
For capitalists the hero of the story is well ,.. The Capitalist who daringly risks all to bring wealth up from the depths of the darkness -a variation on the Prometheus narrative. For Marxists the hero of the story is The Worker whose toil in the mines is the real producer of wealth.
Effectively, both socialism and capitalism are operatic arias in the Wagnerian mode, with two main characters competing for The Ring of Wealth, claim and counter-claim, war, deception and betrayal all part of the story…
In a small accommodation with reality there has been a recognition of this subjective limitation and attempts to modify both classic and Marxist economics. Keynesianism explicitly criticised classic economy from the perspective that it had no macro economic analysis, that it was limited and partial. Marxism also criticised classical economics from the same perspective.
In turn, classical economics responded by broadening the fields of economic activity that it covered and even integrated elements of both Marxism and Keynesianism to produce the modern hybrid that passes for mainstream economics today. At the same time neo liberalism explicitly critiqued Marxist planned economy for offering a limited and distorted perspective on the real world. Only the market was capable of gathering and processing enough information to make the system work it claimed.
Classic economics and Marxism have historically attempted to compensate for narrowness of vision by reaching for an ever more comprehensive breadth of subject matter. Their final strategic purpose is to claim that the point of view they represent is capable of encompassing all of experience. In other words, both capitalism and socialism claim to be universal theories.
This strategy really amounts to nothing more than a form of semantic trickery that exploits the confusion between taking something into account and adequately accounting for something. An analysis undertaken on this basis degenerates into nothing more than description in the form of an ever expanding list of complaints that classic economics makes about Marxist economics and Marxism makes about classic economics.
But neither capitalist economics or Marxism can overcome the fundamental problem that they are subjective in both analysis and purpose- they are in essence particular points of view.
In the back and forth diatribe of mutual complaint each philosophy implicitly recognises the value and need for the other as each seeks new territory to colonise at the expense of the other. Both competing analyses move from old to new battlefields as they become available for domination, seeking both to justify their own existence and to nullify the existence of their opponents.
This is the operation of a dialectic; the domination of thought through the application of a controlled conflict- a drama- a demi-urge.
The last major episode in this opera was the credit crunch. Marxist economics went on the offensive, seeking to gain advantage in this period of capitalism’s distress. In response neo- Classic economy sought to spin events in such a way as to justify itself. Perhaps unsurprisingly classic and Marxist have managed to fight each other to what is effectively a stalemate. Both boxers now winded and bloody, have retired to corners for a chest rub and a pep talk from their respective managers…
The central question now is: Do we wish to invite both protagonists back for a further round of conflict? Would there be any purpose, political or intellectual, in continuing a boxing bout that seems to have stalled in mutual exhaustion? If subjective political economy has nowhere left to go, what can emerge to take its place?
The economic model I propose does not rely on a representation of any particular group as the main protagonist in history and economy. I don’t seek to make The Capitalist the hero of history or The Worker either. On the contrary I am now arguing that there is no such thing as The Capitalist as a concrete economic agent. There is no such thing as The Worker either. They are both literary inventions of Germanic culture. This is where culture meets economics.
Nobody ever in the history of the world ever created capitalist wealth through undertaking risk. Nobody ever in the history of the world ever created capitalist wealth through undertaking labour. Both these ideas are literary fictions.
Instead I am arguing that the only way that capitalist wealth is created is that it is extracted and accrued through the operation of money forms, that is denuded versions of money. These money forms create and operate their own distribution networks within society and economy that allow the extraction of wealth.
Individual or group economic power and significance comes from the extent to which one has access to one or more money forms and is able to utilise them to extract wealth.
This analysis seeks to represent Germanic capitalism from a multiplicity of perspectives to show both action and reaction in any given transaction. We no longer need to be bound to this or that heroic perspective or this or that litany of complaint and counter-complaint.
But there is a price to be paid for this insight. Because in such a model the struggle for economic power becomes a zero sum game. Power is fixed in quantity and quality. If power accrues to one then it necessarily is taken from to another. Wealth cannot be created as in a Germanic literary fantasy.
Just as Einstein’s theory was able to capture the multiplicity of relative motion through the adoption of a constant the speed of light so this model of money requires a constant – that of wealth. Wealth in this model is not created, that is the absolute barrier that cannot be broken through.
The American health care system clearly needs to be rationalised. It is inefficient, with multiple competing bureaucracies, high costs and poor outcomes. many people cannot understand how it has continued to develop in what appears to be such a dysfunctional way.
But what if the size and shape of American health care is entirely rational if you understand the parameters that it operates within?
In my general theory of money I argue that the fundamental structure of capitalist economies is a broad alliance of competing money forms, (partial money), that act as a means of extracting wealth from society as a whole for their respective constituencies and through this process money forms divide up the economy.
Under this model INSURANCE is a money form, whose purpose is to allow its issuers and users (constituency) to extract wealth protected by its representatives among the elite: FACTIONINSURANCE.
You might imagine that because ‘healthcare’ is the subject of insurance that ‘health’ is somehow integral to this insurance business. It is not. ‘Health’ is no more integral to health insurance than birds are integral to ‘Dove’ shower creme.
To make it absolutely clear: ‘Insurance’ does not exist as a consequence of the social need for ‘Healthcare’ rather ‘Healthcare’ exists as a consequence of the economic need for ‘Insurance’. Who has an economic need for insurance? The faction that creates, buys, sells and uses it.
An easy way to understand it is to look back at the development of both rail and then car travel. First trains were invented and then the marketing department for the rail companies had to think of somewhere desirable to go on them. The same applies to the motor car. First the car was invented and then a desirable destination had to be invented. In this way first the ‘seaside’ and then the ‘countryside’ were invented…as well as the suburbs.
Insurance was invented as a money form. Then the insurers had to find something desirable to insure- enter healthcare.
I will build on this insight:
There are a number of competing money factions of which FACTIONINSURANCE is one and FACTIONDERIVATIVE is another; the latest edition to the elite power structure.
I have previously explained how QE was specifically an economic and political arrangement to protect and regularise emergent derivatives in the wake of the crash they caused.
If we accept that there are a number of money factions competing for economic and political primacy and we accept that derivatives have been inducted into the elite club, we can surmise that the derivative share of power must have been allocated at the expense of another competing money faction.
In other words someone must have been made to move over to make room for derivatives at the money table. Which brings us to the following intriguing anomaly:
In both Britain and America the newly elected post credit crunch administrations undertook ambitious and far ranging ‘reforms’ of their respective health care systems, despite the fact that many observers noted that the administrations had far more pressing concerns that they appeared reluctant to confront.
It does seem odd that a Conservative a government in Britain and a Democrat government in America should go out of their way to look for trouble when they had so much of it already.
But what if, in line with my model, they had to rejig the position of FACTIONINSURANCE within the system as a whole to accommodate FACTIONDERIVATIVE?
To put it another way, to get the support of FACTIONINSURANCE they had to get something in return for what they were losing to FACTIONDERIVATIVE
Then the actions of both Anglo Saxon elites would entirely make sense.’ Healthcare reform’ can now be seen for what it is- a central ECONOMIC part of the QE programme.
If my model of how the system operates is correct- how would that be reflected in what we actually observe? We would expect to see an increase in health insurance without a corresponding increase in health. Sound familiar?
All of which brings me to my E=MC2 moment. This is a simple formulation which is the basis for explaining all economic and political history over the past hundred years. It supersedes and clarifies all other economic theory. (Is that all, Andy ?)
Among other startling things my theory makes it possible to calculate to 2 decimal places the Socialism of any individual in comparison to any other individual on the planet.
The Credit Crunch and subsequent QE heralded the formal acceptance of derivatives into the elite money pantheon.
I explained how FACTIONINSURANCE got paid off to allow this to go ahead. But what about FACTIONEQUITY, FACTIONBOND etc?
Well they all got paid off too. In fact everybody seems to have got paid off, except one faction, and you know who that is don’t you?
FACTIONCASH got shafted on all sides.
And what happened as FACTIONCASH had its political and economic power stripped away?
Why, Socialism evaporated into the air as though it had never existed!!
Surely this is the time above all others when people would have turned to Socialism. But they can’t turn to socialism because it doesn’t exist as a real separate political force.
Which leads me to my central formulation:
Want to know exactly to two decimal places how socialist any particular person is?
Find out what percentage of their wealth is held in cash and how much cash they carry around..
I have prepared the following graphic for you to approximate just how Socialist you and your friends and colleagues are…
If you doubt my analysis ask yourself:
What would the world be like if there was only one money form and it was cash?
Why were elites all over the Saxon Axis so desperate to get welfare recipients onto digital payments?
Because it is bad enough if some members of society are socialist, but it really would be too much if the poor were as well…
I have been working towards finishing Crackernomics 2: The Structure Of Money for a couple of years.
When I first began writing about the credit crunch in 2010 I described the form of the crisis and recovery process the same way one might describe the appearance of a conjurors illusion without actually understanding how the trick works. I had the form of what was happening but not the underlying content.
After further observation I began to realise the significance of the specific case of derivatives- that they were in fact a form of money and that QE had the overall purpose of regulating and guaranteeing them as such.
Over the next year or so I extended this understanding of money issuance with my analysis of Bitcoin and other crypto currencies.
However, it turned out to be another six years or so before I understood the general rule and I could produce a comprehensive general analysis and monetary theory…There are two parts to the general theory.
Here are the bones of the first half of that General Money Theory.
Under the cult of Capitalism the state has an effective political monopoly on the creation of money.
This leads people to erroneously presume that since there is only one state operating within each nation state territory that each individual state only allows the production of one kind of money.
In fact capitalist states directly and indirectly sponsor various types of privately issued money including bonds, equities and some forms of insurance. State sponsorship of these other forms of money takes the form of guarantees and regulation. These sponsored other forms of money allow the extraction of wealth from and the regulation of, the capitalist economy.
In the nineties one faction within the American state began to sponsor and promote a new form of privately issued money. This form became generally known as derivatives. Because of the scale and novelty of this form of money issuance it inevitably led to destabilisation and a crisis that is referred to as the Credit Crunch.
The broad idea is the same as the CIA, Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. The CIA started a crisis by invading Cuba and then tried to force Kennedy to back them up. Kennedy refused and you know what happened as a consequence.
In the immediate aftermath of the credit crunch Bush and Obama accepted the fait accompli offered to them by the derivatives faction and used the state to back up the new form of privately issued money.
Under the cult of capitalism Germanic elites established an effective political monopoly over the production of money BUT actually produce more than one kind of money through the sponsorship of bonds, equities, forms of insurance and unmentioned till now; BANK CREDIT which leads to the following central idea:
The history of money production under Capitalism follows this pattern:
A particular political/economic faction in a given society petitions to join the elite and create its own form of money.
It begins to manufacture and use this form of money.
The production of this novel form of money creates a social and economic crisis.
The existing elite either agrees to accept the new form of money and collectively guarantee and regulate it or it does not.
This is how paper cash came to be a form of money- crisis and then acceptance
This is how insurance came to be a form of money- crisis and then acceptance.
This is how bonds came to be accepted crisis and then acceptance
This is how equities came to be accepted -crisis and then acceptance
This is how bank credit came to be accepted crisis and then acceptance
THIS IS HOW DERIVATIVES ARE COMING TO BE ACCEPTED -CRISIS AND THEN ACCEPTANCE.
What do we call this process of collective acceptance of derivatives; their regulation and guarantee by the elite?
We call it QE.
Sometimes this process fails. The Dutch tulip bubble is a good example. The tulip faction failed to get bulbs accepted as a form of currency!!
Here is a fundamental insight:
When a faction bid to create a new form of currency fails it is referred to pejoratively as a bubble. The wealth accrued to that new form of currency is redistributed among its competitor currencies.
The Significance of Gold
The creation of the Federal Reserve was the crisis and acceptance of bank credit as a sponsored money form.
The Wall Street Crash and its resolution was crisis and acceptance of equities as a sponsored money form but;
But the withdrawal of the gold standard was EXACTLY THIS PROCESS IN REVERSE. The original and founding member faction- the GOLD MONEY FACTION was blackballed and EXCOMMUNICATED from the Germanic money elite like the founding CEO of a company being turfed out by other board members!!
This is the significance of going off the gold standard. The original founding faction reduced to penury and obscurity, the plaything of the very factions that it originally allowed into the gang!!
There are money factions operating within Germanic societies which sometimes successfully petition and join the elite. But the end of the gold standard was historically unique in the history of capitalism since it was the first time a money faction was DE-LISTED and DELEGITIMISED.
Next we can identify the money factions. The basic money factions at present are
and last but not least ,(not yet anyway),
Factioncash (which is supposed to be the pre-eminent faction but we all know about the war on cash).
After some consideration I believe there is only room for a LIMITED NUMBER OF FACTIONS at the top table.
Here is my prediction:
It is very possible that FactionInsurance or FactionBond will be delegitimised and expelled by Trump in this administration just like Nixon did to Factiongold!! (Actually on further consideration I think it might very well be Factioncash that is for the high jump..)
Notes On Factioncrypto
Presenters of The Keiser Report Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert are good exemplars of Factioncrypto. They are Pro gold-Anti derivatives- Pro Bitcoin because:
They want the FactionGold to be re-admitted to the monetary elite but this is not going to happen. (I suspect they know this and their support for Factiongold is only rhetorical.)
They want to prevent the legal and political legitimisation of derivatives and Factionderivative, which is why they always refer to derivatives as ‘fraud’. But derivatives are more or less entirely legitimised. Only a major overturn can prevent the successful finalisation of this process.
Factioncrypto want Bitcoin to be accepted as part of the Germanic money elite. But to do this they have to do what every petitioning faction has done before them- they have to use MONETARY TERRORISM tactics- just as they rightly accuse the derivatives faction of doing.. to provoke a crisis, then bargain for acceptance and regulation.
How this general theory of money can explain Real political parties
I have argued that the actual history of politics and economy is not a duopoly/dichotomy of left or right or working class or capitalist or nationalist and globalist but rather a number of competing factions that use money forms to extract wealth and regulate and divide up the economy. This is the true underlying form of politics under capitalism.
But we can take this further and argue that each faction has its supporters in wider society and that this is the actual way we can understand how society is divided up and operates. Each faction has a broader money constituency within society that supports it. This constituency uses their specific money form to extract wealth from the general economy.
Factioncash has a corresponding cash constituency. Factioncash is the REAL PARTY of Cash constituency.
Factioncredit has a corresponding credit constituency Factioncredit is the REAL PARTY of Credit constituency.
Factionbond has a corresponding bond constituency Factionbond is the REAL PARTY of bond constituency.
Factionequity has a corresponding equity constituency Factionequity is the REAL PARTY of equity constituency.
FactionInsurance has a corresponding insurance constituency FactionInsurance is the REAL PARTY of insurance constituency.
Factionderivative has a corresponding derivative constituency Factionderivative is the REAL PARTY of derivative constituency.
Factiongold has a corresponding gold constituency .Factiongold is the REAL PARTY of gold constituency.
Factioncrypto has a corresponding crypto constituency Factioncrypto is the REAL PARTY of crypto constituency.
Actual political identity; that which determines what any individual or group within capitalism will do is determined by the form of money each faction uses.
From this we can observe that some factions have a greater or lesser constituency than others to the extent that some constituencies have little or no faction representing them in the elite and some factions have little or no constituency on the ground.
This exactly and specifically determines how each faction/constituency will act politically. It means we can begin to predict with an unprecedented degree of precision what each grouping will do.
These degrees of constituency can be arranged and compared in a PERIODIC TABLE OF MONETARY FORMS.
We can draw an analogy with the model of an atom. Factions represent the nucleus and constituencies represent the electron configuration outside the nucleus. CONSTITUENCIES therefore influence the relatively trivial domain- the physics and chemistry of the economy and factions influence the profound- the atomic power of the economy.
While the specific balance of components varies from nation state to nation state the basic relationship can be described thus
From top to bottom these are the money forms with the largest real parties (constituencies)
I will apply my model to two well known historical anomalies to illustrate how effective it is:
The mystery collapse of ‘left wing’ working class politics and
The mystery of Quantitive Easing:
1:The mystery collapse of ‘left wing’ ‘working class’ politics
Each monetary faction has a constituency. This is the real nature of societal division. In Britain up until the 1980’s the vast majority of what is called the ‘working class’ were represented by Factioncash and were therefore members of Cashconstitiuency. They were paid in cash. They purchased in cash. They lent and borrowed in cash. They relied on cash as the means to extract their share of society’s wealth.
But as you know in from the 1980’s through massive economic reprogramming the majority of ‘working class’ was forcibly transferred from Factioncash to Factioncredit. They were relocated in Creditconstituency. And so their priorities and allegiances accordingly changed.They were paid in credit. They purchased on credit. They lent and borrowed in credit. They relied on credit as the means to extract their share of society’s wealth.
It is this which explains the collapse of ‘working class’ left wing politics. In essence it was the forcible transfer of political allegiance of the ‘working class’ from Factioncash to Factioncredit.
The mystery of Quantitive Easing
We are familiar with the immediate aftermath of the initial credit crunch. There were a number of meetings between Obama and the bankers. The story goes that the bankers issued Obama with an ultimatum: back us and back derivatives or we will bring the system down. Why did the administration go along with this demand? Was it because they are all Wall Street stooges etc?
Consider the reality of the situation from a faction perspective.
Derivativeconstiuency (DerC) was effectively bankrupt. That ‘s what the Credit Crunch crisis was effectively all about; are derivatives to be accepted and protected or are they to be refused protection are therefore be deemed to be worthless – a bubble?
Factionderivative (FacD) the political representatives of DerC went to bat in a do or die situation. But this was not something new it had been the same for every successful faction since capitalism began.
And FacD had an ace in the hole. The administration was Monetarist and as you probably know Monetarists ABSOLUTELY HATE cash more than anything else on the planet. So the FacD play was simple: Let’s use this opportunity to get together to f*ck cash for once and for all. That was the true nature of the play. And it has worked. Derivatives were preserved at the expense of cash.
I know this is all a bit scrappy and in semi-note form but it is covering a lot of territory and I want to get as much of it as possible down as quickly as possible. I will return to the themes and ideas I have outlined here at a later date.
By the way I am in the faction of the one in whose image I am created
Now we have reached the stage where the only people still talking seriously about the ‘working class’ are a conglomerate of fleabitten left-wing radicals and some of the more sentimental elements of the libertarian right.
Increasingly the phrase: ‘The Working Class’ is beginning to sound like a rhetorical relic of a bygone age. Meanwhile modern ‘liberals’ are reduced to supporting the machinations of CIA/deep state proto fascists against elected President Donald Trump. Formal democratic values are following the ‘Working Class’ off stage left….
Left and right wing perspectives have collapsed completely into a state of complete all encompassing confusion. The historical narratives of Capitalism and Socialism that have dominated the past century and a half are now effectively dead as methods of mobilising large sections of society.
Ask yourself this simple question: In the world in which we live now could any government anywhere get significant numbers of people to fight and die under the banner of ‘Socialism’ or even that of ‘Capitalism’ ?
While this process of collapse and decomposition has been taking place I have argued that both socialism and capitalism are at root expressions of Germanic political culture. This is a materialist analysis. It is founded in concrete history. capitalism and socialism are complimentary to each other and each is a necessary corollary of the other.
If this is correct the collapse of capitalism must necessarily entail the collapse of socialism. And likewise, the collapse of socialism must necessarily entail the collapse of capitalism. Just as Capitalism and Socialism were once both mutually supportive, in their death throes they are mutually destructive, dragging each other into the abyss.
I have argued that the political narrative of capitalism finally collapsed in the credit crunch. Massive open ended state intervention necessary to preserve even the hollow edifice of capitalism showed that there can be no longer be any chance of a meaningful free market anywhere in the world.
Like the ‘working class’, even the phrase ‘free market’ sounds somehow fringe and unconvincing. And on the other hand political and economic developments since 1945, in particular since 1970, have shown that socialism is not now, and can never be a viable conception for the organisation of European society.
In light of what I argue above this implies that the final failure of capitalism in the result of the failure of socialism and this is so. In the final analysis socialism failed to save capitalism from itself…
The main consequence of these developments is that because both Germanic grand conceptions of history has failed, neither has an interest in any grand narrative of history. Both Socialists and Capitalists, ‘left’ and ‘right’, are now only interested in spreading short-term confusion hence the descent into increasingly petty and meaningless attacks on each other.
Neither side of Germanic society has a convincing story to tell, but you can be sure that they are damned if they will allow anyone else to speak into the silence. Because that is definitely not in the interest of Germans as a whole. And if you don’t understand that Germanic peoples recognise and try to act in their own best interests as a group you are a fool.
Still, as The Entertainer Archie Rice says : ‘I have a go, don’t I?’
So Here I Go.
Here are the barest bones of a history of the rise and fall of the Germanic Empire with reference in particular to the role and significance of the cult of socialism .
We can take the mid-16th century as the foundation date of the Germanic Empire. The material basis for this empire was the emerging practice of applied science combined and contrasted with colonial expansion which I will characterise here as Evangelism.
Follow The Money- Follow The Wealth
Both the knowledge base that was to be cannibalised into science and the organisational and political missionary structures that would give rise to Evangelism were scavenged from the newly destroyed monastic Christian system.
The Germanic empire was to be not only a physical empire but more importantly an Empire Of The Mind. It would be brought into existence by a War On The Mind- this War On The Mind took the form of a war on Christianity. Capitalism ravages the minds it makes war on and in just as trench warfare ravaged the landscape of the Somme..
Physical wealth was only a small part of what was actually owned and controlled by the Catholic Church. By far the greatest part of it’s wealth was intellectual, cultural and spiritual. It was clear that the ignorant and boorish among the German Princes and their underlings coveted the material wealth of the Church. But the more sophisticated coveted the intangible wealth of the Church.
The effects of Christianity had transformed the peoples of Northern Eurasia; Gallic, Slavic and Germanic alike , but it did not transform them in the same way. In North West Eurasia it unified some of them under the Catholic church for a while, but it could not wipe out the fundamental differences between the tribes. So let us be absolutely clear: Christianity NEVER successfully converted all of North Western Eurasia. Large parts of Germanic society never actually became Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. This understanding is fundamental to my analysis.
Germanic tribesmen were proselytised and educated by Christian missionaries transforming their social potential. But Christianity did not ‘take’ in Germanic parts of NW Eurasia. The form of Christianity triumphed but the content did not. So powerful was Christianity that even the distorted shadow of its form alone could create the basis for a world dominating empire.
Finally, persistently inadequate doses of Christianity produced a form of resistant intellectual bacteria. Germanic societies produced a bastardised mirror image of the Christian civilising process which reinstated their own pagan culture as the dominant form of society. The name given to this anti-Christianity is Protestantism.
Protestantism is by definition National Christianity.
National Christianity is to Christianity as National Socialism is to Socialism.
The structure of both Continental German and Anglo Saxon societies were determined by what they chose to take and what they chose to leave behind from the Christian monastic system they overthrew. Geographic location led Anglo Saxons to choose Evangelism and forsake Science. Landlocked Germans forsook Evangelism and chose Science.
This brings us to the birth of ‘Socialism’.
Socialism in its fundamentals stems from an attempt to reconcile the Evangelism of the Anglo-Saxon western Germanic empire and the Applied Science of the Continental eastern Germanic empire. Socialism sought to neutralise Science by means of welfarism and to neutralise Evangelism by means of internationalism (multiculturalism). From this it would create a centre ground where the peoples of the Germanic empire, the ‘working classes’ could unite.
The Odd Couple
From this perspective we can begin to clearly see through the murk of historical propaganda back to Karl Marx in London- Marx the professional intellectual and son of a Protestant convert; a Continental German in one of the epicentres of Saxon culture. Karl Marx together with Friedrich Engels-a wealthy German mill owner fascinated by science and history and Gallic immigrant women.
Who better, who more likely than these two: Marx the Michelangelo and Engels his Pope Julius, the ambitious Protestant intellectual and the materially wealthy capitalist ,in this particular time and place, working together to unify Con-German Applied Science and Saxon colonial Evangelism? Seen from this perspective their joint authorship of the formal tenets of Socialism and Communism seems almost inevitable doesn’t it?
Ironically enough, Socialism has always managed to avoid being subject to a rigorous Marxist analysis of its origins, content and purpose. It has managed to combine aspects of social philosophy, religion, economics and even fringe lifestyles in an undifferentiated blob intentionally constructed in such a way as to avoid rational analysis.
It is this irrationality as much as anything that has been the cause of the conflict that has dogged the Socialist movement since it’s inception. Socialism was intended as an antidote to emergent Protestant applied science. It could not kill the emerging Germanic social sciences but it did horrifically maim them so badly that they in turn could never deal a death blow to Marxism!
From Socialism to Communism
Marxism predicts an inevitable fundamental catastrophic collapse of capitalism as a result of its internal contradictions. It follows that capitalism can be preserved for an extended period if it is partially reformed and ameliorated by socialism. When Capitalism goes wrong socialism is used as a corrective. Socialism then reverts to capitalism until the next crisis.
But of course if capitalism is no longer capitalist socialism cannot correct it. In other words socialism can heal capitalism but it cannot bring capitalism back from the dead. Once capitalism dies socialism cannot resurrect it. This is the logic behind communism and its relationship to capitalism.
We know without a doubt that Socialism failed to save capitalism from disaster hence the First ‘World’ War. Specifically, socialism failed to save capitalism because it failed to unify the two halves of the Germanic empire and the two halves of Germanic thought; Anglo Evangelism in the west and German applied science in the east. We know this because the two halves of the Germanic empire started killing each other directly using the new science of war and a new form of colonialism.
And we know in the moment of socialism failing to save capitalism that communism was vividly realised in the form of the birth of the Soviet Union.
Of course this was by no means the end of the story. Where Socialism failed to unify the two halves of the Germanic empire by argument, National Socialism emerged two decades later to unify Germanic society by force.
It failed. But it did finally physically liquidate socialism forever. The possibility of Socialism ever triumphing died in the death camps.
The important points to take away here are:
Contemporary left and right politics are meaningless -they are an intentional distraction from the fact that both narratives have been shown to have comprehensively failed. Do not get involved on either side of this increasingly irrational petty squabble.. Focus on the main narrative.
Socialism and capitalism are both Germanic cults whose ultimate purpose was to preserve and extend the Germanic empire. Their death means that the death and dissolution of the Germanic empire will now accelerate and intensify.
It is possible to have a grand narrative.
But do try to understand that even the very idea of grand narrative sets you against both Germanic left and right.
It makes you a revolutionary.
Earthquakes and wars flatten streets, factories, homes and buildings. But disaster gives an observer the chance to see the layout of a city revealed in a way that otherwise would be impossible. Now the collapse of the traditional liberal ‘left’ allows us to see right across a Germanic political city unimpeded by many of the structures that have obscured the view for the past century.
As we survey the newly revealed topography we can begin to understand what has collapsed and how . We can see that every major event in Germanic politics and culture over the past four decades is the result of the collapse of the Germanic left and the dissolution of the political structures it created.
The Germanic left existed as a globally significant social force for 100 years from the late 1870s until the 1970’s and its final utter collapse. In that century, socialism transformed the way that Germanic societies operated both internally and in the rest of the world.
Socialism acted historically as a means of extending and consolidating Germanic economic and political power in the same way that the missionary movement extended and consolidated the power of colonising nations in the two centuries before the rise of the modern Germanic empire.
Socialism justified ever expanding Germanic control of the world’s resources under the rubric of ‘progress’. The pains and tribulations inflicted by Germanic capitalistic control were justified on the basis that subject peoples were receiving the gift of progress and development tomorrow as compensation in trade for pain and suffering today. Just as the inhabitants of Manhattan exchanged their island in return for a box of worthless trinkets, so generations of world people have had their real future stolen and exchanged for Germanic ‘progress’.
Let us be absolutely clear; at base the ‘left’ and ‘socialism’ are apologists for and enablers of Germanic control and nothing more. Socialists plead to the masters on behalf of oppressed peoples and make a show of seeking some mitigation of their suffering. In turn they seek to instruct these lesser peoples in the ways they could avoid unnecessary suffering and even further their interests under the Germanic system. It’s all about how to get along and not cause too much trouble. We might be even able to squeeze you out a little ‘welfare’ payment if you are good.
The Germanic left acted as self appointed mediators between the powerful and the powerless, oppressor and oppressed; between the Germanic nations and the rest of the world. It is not really any wonder that Lenin and the Bolsheviks attitude towards the Germanic ‘left’ soured from friendly contempt to cold hatred over the period of the Russian Revolution.
Lenin came to understand that the Germanic ‘left’ was German first and socialist second. Which really means capitalist first and socialist second. When the mask of fake socialist internationalism was stripped away from the Germans the stage was set for a war of genocide against the Slav people. When there was no more advantage in hiding, the German werewolf came out from behind the trees….
After the Holocaust and the attempted Slav genocide it had become apparent to the worlds population that Germanic nations armed with modern technology were if anything, more savage and more barbaric than any of the ‘backward’ nations they had claimed to be developing. The myth of progress through capitalism and Germanic culture had been IRREVERSIBLY damaged. If the Germans couldn’t civilise themselves through technology and progress, how were they supposed to civilise the rest of the world?
This internal and external collapse of the ideological structure of capitalistic Protestantism lead directly to the protracted sickness and death of its deformed twin sister, socialism. It was not the Germanic ‘right’ that was discredited to death in the concentration camps of the second Germanic War, it was the ‘left’. This is Tragedy in the classic sense of the word.
‘Socialism’ did not fall with the collapse of the Soviet union in 1991, it fell with the first images of Auschwitz that reached the world 45 years earlier.
The ‘Reformation’ and dissolution of the monasteries and the Church began with the murder of Catholic monks. The fall of socialism began with the murder of German socialist aesthetes in the concentration camps. This is not co-incidence. One is a replay of the other. If you doubt it, look for the roots of Nazi anti Semitism in Martin Luther’s ravings.
Dissolution is an historical form of Kristallnacht carried out against Catholics that transformed the social, political, economic and moral landscape of North West Europe. The Protestant Kristallnacht has been absorbed into the historical fabric of Europe, but it is still possible to discern the shape of corpses buried beneath the ground.
The monastic movement was characterised by the ownership and administration of land in common under the authority of the Catholic church and the regulation of local societies under the administrative hierarchy of the clergy. This formed the basis for what is known as the ‘feudal’ economy.
After the initial shock of the attack on the monasteries, the total stripping away of their accumulated wealth took a considerable amount of time. And it was this process of stripping away that gave the new Germanic states and their societies their specific nature.
Firstly, the land that had been supposedly promised to the peasants of Germanic Europe was rapidly allocated to the German princes behind the Reformation. It was this accumulation of land wealth into private hands from its previous common ownership, that formed the basis for Germanic Land democracy.
Once the concept of common ownership of land was effectively abolished, a whole section of society was forced out of the agrarian economy and into the cities. This of course, was the basis for urbanisation the creation of the ‘working class’ and the Germanic cult of capitalism.
As well as the land there was other wealth within the monasteries. These included artworks, relics and artefacts, and just as importantly, wealth in the form of knowledge which when scavenged, would form the basis for the cult of science.
Once the princes had had their pick of the wealth from the Church, what remained was left to the ordinary people. They came to scavenge in order of local social power and status and stripped away what they could – carvings, tapestries etc until even the carved woodwork and the masonry work was carted away by peasants and used to build the walls of pigsties and cattle sheds etc.
Something very like this has happened and is happening in the dissolution of socialism. What we can actually see right now in front of our very eyes, is various groups within Germanic society breaking up and carting away the remaining wealth of socialism.
The national public health service. The public education system. The public housing system. The public transport system. Even the army. These are all examples of the hard wealth of socialism that are being looted and dismembered.
But just as the knowledge base of the monasteries was taken away so the social intellectual content of socialism is being shared out among the scavengers
The organic food movement
Even Survivalism !
are all aspects of SOCIALIST social wealth that has been carried away by the modern German peasantry. And this leads to what is most startling about all this: Where the looted goods of Socialism have been turning up.
I explained that the looting of the Church was carried out according to social status. The German Princes got the land and the most valuable items. This obviously corresponds to the new German princes who have reaped the rewards of privatisation and financialisation.
But look where all the other stuff has gone…
To name but a few things:
The spirit of self education and enquiry turns up as deformed conspiracy theory in the hand of David Icke etc and other ‘researchers’ in the alternative media
Anti corporatism ends up as Trumpa-lumpa cartoon protectionist tub thumping a la Alex Jones
Organic food taken over by corporate wannabees
The desire to be free on common land ends up as some poor sap running round in a camouflage jacket in the name of survivalism
I said there was a close relationship between the Dissolution and Kristallnacht. Think of the way that the wealth of Communists, Jewish businesses etc all ended up in German hands. The houses, works of art, furniture etc. all appropriated and their owners liquidated. You could be talking to a hausfrau in the street in Dusseldorf and realise that her earrings are made of the gold fillings from somebody’s teeth.
And when the holy places have been stripped bare. And everyone in German society, even down to the lowest has had a chance to pick over the rags and the rubble. And the rag bag gang have taken everything there is to take. And the even the doors have been stolen so the wind blows through and the roof of the building is caved in . What will be left for the likes of you and me?
I just posted that bove and then I saw this!!!
We cannot celebrate revolutionary Russian art – it is brutal propaganda
The Royal Academy is showcasing Russian art from the age of Lenin – but we must not overlook that his regime’s totalitarian violence rivalled nazism