Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique Products & Services On Earth!

Toward A Theory Of Why
We Get Nowhere
(Including an article by H.G. Wells)
By Dick Eastman
What is the organized majority's method of keeping the the unorganized majority unorganized and in thrall?
My theory is that people do not change their politics individually. They must be in a group to form their politics and to change their political positions. I think this is an inherited behavioral characteristic of the species. When ideas are spoken in a group and a person is standing in a group as part of a group a kind of consensus to change views is reached with, because the individuals are in the group "takes" or "bonds" to the individuals in the group.
I say that as a rationalist, an individualist, a behaviorist. Man is a political animal and that is just the way it is.
We will make no progress against the corrupt money power and its propaganda machinery until we gather in crowds and are addressed by people who can present our own thinking to us clearly so that we may unite in understanding and purpose. Internet activism and small private discussions are never going to do the job.
You love Ron Paul because he seemed to be the only voice with some of our ideas who was speaking before crowds of people -- except that he wasn't really interested in helping us, just in absorbing all of the support people gave to him and throwing it all away before the GOP convention where he was sure to have won if he only showed up for us.
I have discovered the reason why we cannot organize and get reform in the public interest. Anyone who rises up to challenge the system is faced with either neglect and starvation or a chance to sell out and join the political class they should be overthrowing. The same goes for third parties and "movements" -- it is always the old "iron rule of oligarchy" in sociology -- "show me an organization and I will show you an oligarchy."
It is impossible for the plundered majority to organize. And it is impossible to unseat a majority that adopts all of our values for their own flag -- always saying the magic charm words "freedom" "equality" "change" "social justice" and other political formulae to trick the unorganized majority into believing they the elite are the benevolent rightful holders of the power to coerce, rob and regulate at our expense their own priviledges and receipt of tribute through debt, tax and restriction servitude.
Robert Michels, a German sociologist who died in 1936, claimed that big conflicts among political parties like our Republicans and Democrats, but also the socialists, communists, libertarians and "patriotic" parties which the people believe so sincere and important are in reality nothing more than rival power seekers in struggles for the spoils of office. The only reason parties favor a "two-party system" or a "multi-party system" is because they know that eventually any partys criminality will catch up with it and the people will manage to replace it with another party -- until that one messes up and the original party, oweing to the publics short memory, puts the first party back in office. And then of course the real power -- the true ruling minority -- own the leadership of both alternating parties wo that their real power behind the scenes is never broken.
Most people can't see principles at work, only personalities. They focused on "Bush" and now they focus on Obama and Ron Paul or whoever is playing their song for them at the moment. They will never escape from the trap they are in -- that we are in -- unless they, you and I, face the deception and throw off the straightjacket of rule by manipulation of our emotions with phony appeals to our values which the politician talking doesn't believe in himself.
I say its time for us to give up both Jewish marketed "reality" and Jewish "private stock" reality for the sociological view about the ruling minority. Jewish media marketed reality is the "mainstream view," the articles the media monopoly pushes in front of people.
Jewish private stock reality is the Zionist conspiracy and all of the technologies of applied behavioral, economic and other scientific analysis by which the gentiles are unwillingly controlled. The sociological view looks at both of the other views and it comprenhends the playing field in which Jews and Jewsih deceptions operate.
The Jewish viewpoint has one feature that provides an edge that provides material rewards that reinforce the entire system and works against the assimilation that would end the misery of the world. The conspiratorial nature of Jews follows from this viewpoint, the viewpoint that gentiles are "other-than-man" and that therefore morality and the commandments of Moses, which include, don't steal, don't bear false witness, don't covet by neighbors' wealth are not to be applied to gentiles. Since status among Jews and the sign that one is blessed of God -- God forbid that one should dare say so however -- depends of "making money," it comes down that the only moral way of making that money is by market manipulation from inside information and rigged markets and scams and crimes. Thus the gentiles world becomes the impersonal desensitized arena of passionate even mystical bloody Jewish mayhem to obtain God's blessings upon Jews (or forget God doing the blessing or redefine God as Jewishness itself -- the entire performance hidden behind a curtain of "blame the victim" -- -- desensitization when inflicting pain and injustice upon the gentiles and mystical Talmudic and kabalistic passion for scoring the blessing of aquisitions in doing so.
Werner Sombart, who died in Germany in 1941, points out that when Sephardic Jews were thrown out of Spain and Portugal in the 1490's they came to Amsterdam where capitalist enterprise based on banking with 100 percent backing were Calvinists morality, the belief in ones calling to serve God in one's work and to be a good steward of whatever one was entrusted with by God, bettering oneself as befits one of the elect in a useful, industrious, and ascetic life of good works that while it can't purchase salvation does in fact represent the fruit of saving faith which God's elect manifest to the end.
His personal gain was but a by-product of his organizing the world for the good of others, leaving to God the question of who is chosen and who is not. The arrival in Holland and London of the wealthy Jews from Spain and Portugal readapted the form and spirit of Calvinist enterprise to speculative fractional-reserve usury capitalism and imperialism.
Robert Lekachman describes the transition:
"In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Jews almost monopolized the luxury trade in jewlry, silks, and precious stones. They were powerful in the major export trades and they took care to sell to countries, Spain and Portugal, which could pay in the precious metals. Their role in colonization and slave trade was substantial. Not only did Jews finance Columbus, but some went with him, and Columbus himself may have been Jewish. Jews swarmed into America and played a leading part in its history. 'What we call Americanism is nothing else, if we may say so, than the Jewish spirit distilled.' Jews were indispensable in the founding of the modern state. As its financiers and purveyors, they loaned it money and sold its weapons and food. 'Arm in arm, the Jew and the ruler stride through the age which the historians call modern.'"
"With characteristic ingenuity, the Jews invented a whole armory of capitalist devices. Among them were securites markets, international stock dealings, modern credit instruments, nineteenth-century stock promotions, installment selling, advertising, and the modern newspaper. 'The attitude fo the Talmud . . . is friendly towards exchange, and the Jews adopted it throughout the Middle Ages. ... Four objective circumstances assisted them. They were widely dispersed, maintained as unassimilatedstrangers, given only quaisi-citizenship, and well endowed with worldly goods from outside every community in which they did business. In other words, they were everywhere and, consequently, could always find fellow Jews with whom to negotiate."
"The Jewish religion was a contract between man and God in which appropriate behavior brought aproper reward. As in any comercial contract, the accounts were carefully kept, and penalities applied to the man who failed to fulfill his bond. . . . Jewish religion promoted four special Jewish characteristics. Jews were intellectual. Although the intellectuality was shallow and narrow, Jews reasoned closely and accurately in all commercial matters.
Jews believed in teleology: every thing, every act must have a purpose. They were mobile and they wer energetic. Thus, there was a triple parallelism between Jewish character, Jewish religion, and capitalism." IRobert Lekachman, A History of Economic Ideas (New York: McGraw Hill, 1959)
C.H. Douglas once said, " We have nothing to fear from the"idle rich". It is the not so idle rich which should concern us."
Given the sociology of the Jews and their difference from the Calvinist, Saxon, particularist, e.g., Adam Smith, the Calvinist founding fathers, Carnegie, Ford, Edison, Calvin Coolidge et al. on one hand versus Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Baruch et al. on the other -- Sombart believed, according to Lekachman, that if there were certain activities being pursued that were extremely harmful to society in general but benefiting unseen interests "that Jews must be at their head, even if no Jews were in evidence." A jumpy conclusion that flies in the face of our sense of justice, but which nevertheless gains substantial inductive support as the unexpurgated histories of various kleptastrophies come to light.
( Hear discussion of the role of Bernard Baruch in the great kleptastrophes of the 20th century http://www.renseradio.com/signup.htm - the Feb 21 2007 broadcast -- which set of claims I have backed up up with referenced quotations of biographers, economists and historians here: http://www.rense.com/rewer.htm )
There is much more to be said about how we can break the spell of political parties and organizations always owned at the top -- he solution lies in the ideas of Jefferson and others.
But first we must see who the ruling elite really are and whose interests they serve and at whose expense.
A man in his lifetime considered one of the great champions of common humanity on this planet, H. G. Wells, in 1938, had thoughts on "the Jewish Question" that I find almost identical to my own.
It was 10 months before the outbreak of World War II, that the following article by Wells appeared in Liberty magazine on the subject, "The Future of the Jews." Here are some excerpts from that article followed by some of the letters received by the editor of that magazine in response to it.
H. G. Wells
I met a Jewsih friend of mine the other day and he asked me, "What is going to happen to the Jews?" It told him I had rather he had asked me a different question, "What is going to happen to mankind?"
"But my people --" he began.
"That," said I, "is exactly what is the matter with them."
When I was a schoolboy in a London suburb I never heard of the "Jewish Question." I realised later that I had Jewish and semi-Jewish school-fellows, but not at the time. They were all one to me. The Jews, I thought, were people in the Bible, and that was that. I think I it was my friend Walter Low who first suggested that I was behaving badly to his persecuted race. Walter, like myself, was a University crammer and a journalist competing on precisely equal terms with myself. One elder brother of his was editor of the St. James Gazette and another was The Times correspondent in Washington and both were subsequently knighted.
Later a daughter of Walter's was to marry Litvinov, who became the Russian Foreign Minister. I could not see that they were at any disadvantage whatsoever in England. Nevertheless Walter held on to the idea that he was treated as an outcast, and presently along came Zangwill in a state of racial championship, exacerbating this idea that I was responsible for the Egyptian and Babylonian captivities, the destruction of Jerusalem, the ghettos, the auto-da-fés -- and generally what was I going to do about it?
My disposition was all for letting bygones be bygones.
When the war came in 1914 some of us were trying to impose upon it the idea that it was a War to End War, that if we could make ourselves heard sufficiently we might emerge from that convulsion with some sort of World Pax, a clean-up of the old order, and a fresh start for the economic life of mankind as a whole. No doubt we were very ridiculous to hope for anyting of the sort, and through the twenty years of fatuity that have followed the Armistice, the gifted young have kept up a chorus of happy derision, "War to End War Ya ha!" But throughout those tragic and almost fuitless four years of war, Zangwell and the Jewish spokesmen were most elaborately and energetically demonstrating that they cared not a rap for the troubles and dangers of English, French, Germans, Russians, Americans or of any other people but their own. They kept their eyes steadfastly upon the restoration of the Jews -- and what was worse in the long run, they kept the Gentiles acutely aware of this.
The Zionist movement was a resounding advertizement to all the world of the inassimilable spirit of the more audible Jews. In England, where there has been no social, political or economic discrimination against the Jews for several generations, there is a growoing irritation at the killing and wounding of British soldiers and Arabs in pitched battles fought because of this Zionist idea.
It seems to our common people an irrelevance, before the formidable issues they have to face on their own account. They are beginning to feel that if they are to be history ridden to the extent of restoring a Jewish state that was extinguished nearly two thousand years ago, they might just as well go back another thousand years and sacrifice their sons to restore the Canaanites and Philistines who possessed the land before the original Jewish conquest.
It is very unwillingly that I make this mild recognition of a certain national egotism the Jews as a people display, because I am acutely sensible of the misery and suffering to which great numers of them are being subjected in many parts of the world. But it is fundamental to the Jewish question that they do remain a peculiar people in the French- and English-speaking communities largely by their own free choice, because they are history-ridden and because they are haunted by a persuasion that they are a chosen people with distinctive privileges over their Gentile follow-creatures.
I know that the situation is hardening against them. In the days of my boyhood it was possible for an Englishman or a Frenchman or an American to answer the Jewish Question with one word, "Assimilate." We would declare we had no objection. Wasn't our civilization good enough for anyone? As Joseph Choate said to me on my first visit to America in 1906, in regard to the flood of immigration, "Let 'em all come." Why keep up this separateness?
But we can say that no longer. Life has very suddenly and swiftly taken on a grimmer face. It has taken on a grimmer face to everyone, but more immediately towards the Jews. The doors to assimilation are being slammed upon him. He is being driven out of countries where he had seemed to be secure. He is no longer free to escape tot he countries which tolerate his kind. They too limit immigration now or bar it altogether. It is threatened very plainly with a systematic attempt to exterminate him -- and to exterminate him brutally and cruelly.
Now this intensification of the Jewish problem is not, I repeat, a thing in itself. It is part of a sweift and terrifying change which is coming over human affairs, and I do not believe it can be dealt with by itself or in any way except as a portion of the general human problem. The time has come for all sane men to sink their special differences in a universal effort.
The wisdom of our species was not enough to make the Great War of 1914-1918 a "war to end war" or to achieve any solution of the economic difficulties that were pressing upon us. For two decades it may be said of the financial and business worlds and of the Foreign Offices, the more they have changed the more they have remained the same thing. ...
Meanwhile a new generation of feverish young people without anything to look forward to, grew up, and science and invention continually produced potential weapons of increasing power and range. . . . In every country the disillusioned young turned their face towards violent remedies for the economic disorganization that had robbed them of hope. War rose again in uglier and more destructive guise. . . . An immense dismay spread over the world. We live in that dismay.
So long as we are stuck in our traditions, we are going to live in that dismay. We are going to drift from war to war and each will be worse than the last.
The need for a strenuous intellectual effort, for a vast renascence of education throughout the world, to raise the human intellect and will up to a sane cooperation, is glaringly manifest. We cannot afford to waste any of our intellectual resources if that drift is to be arrested. . . . It is no good dreaming of raising human social and political life with the dear old principles. . .
Many of us had counted on the active Jewish mentality and the network of Jewish understanding about the world for a substantial contribution to that immense mental task. Such great imaginative Jews as (greatest of all in my opinion) David Lubin, Disraeli [note: the Rothschild-serving Prime Minister who promoted Bank of England imperialism against the liberalism of Wm. Gladstone, Richard Cobden and John Bright -- DE] Marx [note: who promoted
violent revolution to obtain a dictatorship of the proletariat led by an elite of Marxists, working against the further evolution of the liberal society to which the achievements of the 19th century can be attributed; Marx, with financial backing and assistance by Jews at every level, interposed this brutal and irrational a replacement for the truly humanitarian liberalism of men like Herbert Spencer, John Bright and the sociologism of Comte, Rodburtus, Sismundi, Proudon, Ruskin, Owen, Proudon, so many of whom had realized that the remaining weakness of classical liberalism was the problem of underconsumption -- too much purchasing power being drained off by the financial sector and by monopoly for production and opportunity to be sustained and misery to be erradicated. It is a fact that Marx completely banned monopoly and credit monopoly as problems to be solved in his analysis of capitalism; Marx was thrust on the scene just in time to kill the evolution of the correction of the problem of economic crises so profitable to international speculators, which of course is why the City of London has always secretly backed Marx,Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Zhou Enlai. -- DE] [ Now back to Wells who was erroneously asserting: ] . . . Lubin, Disraeli, Marx had given themselves an earnest of the possibility of a self-forgetful race, "sprinkling many nations," and giving itself -- not altogether without recompense -- to the service of mankind. We have been disappointed.
No people in the world have caught the fever of irrational nationalism that has been epidemic in the world since 1918, so badly as the Jews. They have intruded into an Arab country in a mood of intense racial exhibitionism. Instead of learning the language of their adopted country they have vamped up Hebrew. They have treated the inhabitants of Palestine preactically as non-existent people, and yet these same Arabs are a people more purely Semitic than themselves. Nationalism, like a disease germ, begets itself, and they have lown up Lawrence's propaganda invention of Arab nationalism into a flame. They have added a new and increasing embarrassment to the troubles of the strained and possibly disintegrating British Empire.
In all these things the Jews have been doing nothing that any other people might have done in the same circumstances -- at the same level of history-ridden unenlightenment. They are not exceptional; they are typical. We are all being aggressive and different and difficult to each other. The Jews are not the only people who have been educated to believe themselves peculiar and chosen. The Germans, for example, have produced a very good parallel to Zionism in the Nordic theory. They too must keep themselves heroically pure. I believe that the current Nazi gospel is actually and traceably the Old Testament turned inside out. It is one step from the Lutheran Church to the Brown House. When I was a boy I got a lot of the same sort of poison out of J.R. Green's History of the English People in the form of "Anglo-Saxonism." I know only too well the poisonous charm of such a phrase as Milton's "God's Englishman." Most history as it is and as it has been taught is a poisonous stimulation of the latent possibilities of suspicion, hate, vanity and mob violence in the human make-up. The Jews are not so peculiar as they and many Gentiles suppose. But it looks as though the penalites of a cultivated racial egotism in a world where distances are being abolished and the tension of life is increasing frightfully, are going to hit them first and hardest. They are going to be hit much harder than they have ever been hit before.
We Gentiles, now and in the years ahead, are going to see, in the efforts and experiences of the Jews, a sort of selected and intensified anticipation of what is to follow for ourselves and our children. If Judaism is murdered and exterminated -- and that is quite a probable thing now -- it will be only the opening phase of an age of warfare, conquest and extermination. The turn of the nation after nation will follow. That is how things must work out at the present level of our ideologies.
It is quite possible that the Jewish story will end in forcible sterilisation and death. But there is no reason why it should do so. There is not reason at all in most of this belligerence, persecution, want and misery amidst which we choose to live. It might be stopped long before the Jews are overwhelmed. It is simple that we, as a species, lack the vigour to end this confusion. We cling to flattering lies, delusions, animosities, mean advantages. The accepted tradition of the Jews is largely nonsense. They are no more a "pure" race than the English or the Germans or the hundred per cent Americans. There never was a "Promise;" they were never "Chosen;" their distinctive observances, their Sabbath, their Passover, their queer calendar, are mere traditional oddities of no present significance whatever. There is nothing to prevent their living in equal and happy intercourse with other equally civilized people, if only the world could get rid of an incubus of prejudice. We need only a reasonable and possible elevation of the educational level of the world for the "Jewish Question" to vanish altogether.
The only way out from the present human catastrophe for Jew and Gentile alike, is a world-wide, conscious educational emancipation. In books, universities, colleges, schools, newspapers, palys, assemblies, we want incessant, ruthless truth-telling about these old legends that divide and antagonise and waste us. We want a great massacre of stale beliefs and ancient grievances and claims, if we are to avoid great massacres of human beings. There are thousands of Jewish writers, professors, philosophers, journalists, publishers, booksellers, film magnates, capitalists of every sort, who might contribute enormously more than they do now to the release and enlightenment of mankind -- if only they would forget they are Jews and remember that they are men. The future of the Jews is like the future of the Irish, Scotch, Welsh, English, Germans and Russians, and that is common humanity in one large and varied world of harmonious coordination, or death.
Here are some responses to this article by the readers of Liberty
Note that the responses all in capital letters are telegrams the editor has published as received -- there is no upper and lower case in Morse Code -- and so the author should not be viewed as "shouting" letters as they would be viewed in e-mail today, unless of course sending an expensive telegram rather than a 3 cent letter is viewed as a possible intentional shout.
Columbus GA. -- Thanks for the delightfully interesting article.
The Future of the Jews, by H. G. Wells (December 24, Liberty). Due to the overwhelming mass of propaganda flooding this country, it's seldom that we obtain an intelligent and truthful version of the Jewish situation.
The only salvation for the Jews much come from the Jews, and from the Jews alone. They must lose their identity! Assimilate!
They must turn their Judaism into some kind of ethical or social religion. They must forget their ancient traditions --traditions that have been strangling them for generations. The Jew is just about as much "chosen" as the rest of 'God's chillen', and the quicker he becomes cognizant fo the fact, the sooner will he be accepted by all as a desirable neighbor and friend.
-- Dan Gillis
PHILADELPHIA, PA. -- May I thank Liberty and Mr. Wells for the firm and concise article that I know will be resented and misunderstood by a great many of my people.
I would say to the Jews of America: My people, let's join our America full-heartedly and not by the back-door method of calling attention to our so-called Biblical superiority.
Nationalism first, religion second. But the shoulder that is under the 'chip' against the wheel of progress toward a better understanding based on personal ability and usefulness in the service of our country.
God bless it. -- M.J.D.
SHREVEPORT, LA. -- Mr. Wells has pointed out that as long as Jews remain a separate group they cannot contribute tot he progress of the nation in which they live. Surely he has not forgotten the Disraeli whom he himself mentions, and the great contribution he made to the development of the author's beloved Britain. Then there are the Heines, the Freuds, the SPinozas, the Einsteins, who have not only given to the culture and science of their adopted nations, but to the world.
The possible future of the Jews is, of course, a matter of conjecture; but I do not think --nor do I believe that Mr. Wells thinks -- that a race which has created so much of the foundation work of modern society, which has contributed so much to the knowledge and beauty of the world, will be allowed to be stamped out by the intoleratnt might of tryanny. -- Bernard Schram, Managing Editor, the Jewish Journal
PATERSON, N.J. -- Popular novelists as well as morons have the privilege of making stupid statements. If Mr. H.G. Wells would only think a little before he writes, he would observe that it is not the Jews who make anti-Semitism but it is anti_Semitism that makes Jews. If it weren't for persecution, the Jews would have disappeared hundreds of years ago.
These people have beentrying to assimilate with their neighbors since the time of the great Greeks. Whereever and whenever Jews are allowed to live as equals they adopt the habits and customs of the majority, they intermarry and merge with the population. In Germany they became so Germanized that they completely forgot they were Jews until Hitler came along and reminded them of it.
If Mr. Wells is right, then Germany should have been the last place in the world for anti-Semitism to have arisen. -- Harold Brown
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.
Addendum and Comment
From Dick Eastman
Ken Freeland provides a different viewpoint on questions rasied in "towards a theory of why we are getting nowhere." (below) He challenges me on my assuming that Marx was for revolution, asking me to show him where Marx wrote that he was for revolution. (To bad Marx is not alive, Ken could run him on a ticket with Ron Paul in 2012.) He also puts me down as disagreeing with H.G. Wells essay (which I shared in the first place). That one I will answer in full. For the record, I did not intend saying that I disagreed with H.G. Wells in anything presented in the essay except in his admiration of Marx and Disraeli as friends of mankind. Disraeli was a Rothschild agents pure and simple. Marx's movement was supported by City of London merchant bankers to keep workers from going liberal, prefering dialectical conflict that could be leveraged for gain for the financial elites over the bourgeois businessman who pays for expansion out of profits instead of borrowing -- the communist revolution in Russia, like the French revolution, was a foreclosure and liquidation of nationalist elites who turned against international financiers, the backers of the Zionist idea. Marx despised the middle-class -- the entrepreneurs and industrialists -- not the merchant bankers. The Communist Manifesto called for central banks and did not oppose "big business monopoly" in any sense -- and in fact welcomed it a movement to the centralized planned economy of the dictatorship of the proletariat. I agree with everything Wells wrote in the piece below except his estimation of the motivation of these two men.
One more thing - any miscommunication, my fault not Ken's. I was not saying Marx was unaware of "underconsuption" in the sense of "poverty" or the workers not getting the full product they contributed in production. I was speaking of underconsumption as a cause of crises -- gluts where people are put out of work because they lack purchasing power to buy and because they are too poor to have bargaining power in wage determination. Marx viewed underconsuption (poverty) as the result of capitalist expropriation of the means of production, the theft of the value labor produces -- a view based on a labor theory of value. I was speaking of underconsumption in the sense of insufficient purchasing power to buy what people can produce for various reasons -- because the financial sector ends up draining it off, so that Say's law of markets -- where aggregate demand equals aggregate supply and "gluts" and depressions caused by gluts are impossible. (Say's Law conflicts with C. H. Douglas's A + B theorem which Douglas uses to explain the insufficiency of wages and profits to buy up production (leading to the imperialist quest for foreign markets etc.) I was NOT NOT NOT saying that Marx didn't think the workers were poor and getting poorer tending towards subsistence wages.
- Dick Eastman
From Ken Freeland
HI Dick,
Let me say at the outset that I am taking the time to critique your essay below because it is a very valuable one. With the exception of what I will mention below, you have approached this sensitive question with verve and scholarship, so before I throw the brickbats, let me send you some well-deserved kudos. Your essay is rich and insightful, and if you had left it at that, with the notable but predictable exception of yet more Ron Paul bashing, there would hardly be anything I could offer by way of criticism. [With this one exception: you lump Rockefeller with the Jews vs. the Calvinists, but in fact the Rockefeller clan was Calvinist to the core. Read up on it!]
But alas, you did not. You included the article by H.G. Wells, whom you presumed to "correct." But I am here to say that Wells knew much more whereof he spoke than you do.
You are truly an equal-opportunity basher, Dick. When you are not bashing Ron Paul on the libertarian right, you are bashing Karl Marx on the socialist left. But your criticism of both is equally unfounded.
You state that Marx "promoted violent revolution." I would like to ask you to cite any passage from Marx's own work wherein your claim is justified.
You assert that Marx was "working against the further evolution of the liberal society to which the achievements of the 19th century can be attributed." I suppose you are entitled to your own interpretation here, but in my opinion your assertion is false. What Marx did was to expose the hypocrisy of that same "liberal society" which you are wont to defend, but that he recognized had feet of clay: it was grounded in the deep oppression and exploitation of one class by another and these "liberal values" so vaunted by you were only the frosting on a shit cake of systemic larceny. Dickensian England was not a pretty place for working people, but maybe you have forgotten that.
You claim that Marx was given "financial backing and assistance by Jews at every level." This is the tired old cavil of right-wing Marx-bashers everywhere, who portray Marx as a conscious agent of a well-heeled conspiracy. But anyone familiar with Marx's ACTUAL biography knows that this is rubbish. Marx lived the greater part of his adult life in grinding poverty, eventually hocking what valuables remained from his wife's aristocratic legacy. He subsisted on part-time journalism and whatever handouts he could get from his friend Engels, who subsidized him out of respect. And Engels was not channelling money from anyone it came from his work in his father's textile factory. At the very end of Marx's life, Engels arranged an annuity for him and his wife that finally allowed Marx to live without the strain of finding gainful employment, so he could fully dedicate himself to his research and polemics.
Now it is hilarious, Dick, that you suggest that those who you oppose to Marx were aware that underconsumption was the problem, but that Marx was not (Marx who, unlike those others, actually experienced underconsumption for a large part of his life!) Marx was acutely aware of underconsumption and wrote whole books on the question, but unlike these liberals, he identified the problem as systemic in capitalism, which just happened to be the earth under their feet. Profit-taking by the capitalist drains from the exchange value of the worker's product too much for the worker to be able to consume his own product back. It's that simple. Yes, the problem was certainly exacerbated by the subsequent "financialization" of industry, but remember that this was no so advanced in Marx's day as it is now. Indeed, it is not Marx but LENIN who addresses this issue. Marx did not "ban" anything, he simply focused on the economics of capitalism, while condemning the various financial machinations of the Jews (quite literally). So not only did he not "ban" it, he expressed it himself! Your claim that the questions of monopoly and credit monopoly were banned from his analysis only demonstrates that you have never read any of it.
Likewise ludicrous is your claim that but for Marx, liberal society would have evolved its way out of the problem of "underconsumption." LOL. Marx identified the CAUSE of that problem. Did the liberals then go on to solve it? No, they have spent the last century and a half vilifiying Marx and his work, and they have not evolved the slightest remedy for this continuing problem, because it is not an accidental but an endemic part of the capitalist system. Marx and the Marxists are not around any more, but are liberals now evolving this solution? They are not. They are still kicking the dead Marx and making more excuses for the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer, all the while moaning about their liberal dream. It is HOGWASH, and Marx realized that.
See, Wells understood all of this, but then, Wells actually read Marx. While your scholarship on the Jewish Question demonstrates a ready familiarity with its attendant literature, the level of scholarship demonstrated by your commentary on Wells' view of Marx can best be described as anemic. You should stick to what you know, Dick. I think you don't know much more about Karl Marx than you do about Ron Paul.
Ken Freeland
Donate to Rense.com
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At Rense.com
Subscribe To RenseRadio!
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files, 
Highest Quality Live Programs


This Site Served by TheHostPros