- 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
- "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,
- C.H. Douglas once said, " We have nothing to fear
from the"idle rich". It is the not so idle rich which should
- 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:
- 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
- "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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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,
- Here are some responses to this article by the readers
- 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
- Columbus GA. -- Thanks for the delightfully interesting
- 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
- 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
- NEW YORK NY -- H G WELLS SAYS BRITISH RESENT HAVING TO
PROTECT JEWS AGAINST ARABS TRUTH IS THAT JEWISH SOLDIERS HEROICALLY DEFENDING
BRITISH AS WELL AS GENERAL ARAB POPULATION AGAINST TERRORISTS WHO ARE PAID
TO BE PATRIOTS BY GERMAN AND ITALIAN AGENTS -- SAMUEL BLITZ
- 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
- 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
- NEW YORK NY -- ONE NEED NOT WAIT TO READ MRS ROOSEVELTS
REPLY TO H G WELLS TO SAY HOW THOROUGHLY COCKEYED ARE HIS IDEAS AND OPINIONS
OF HIS SUBJECT THE FUTURE OF THE JEWS I HAVE SELDOM READ A MORE INADEQUATE
AND INACCURATE VIEW OF A TOPIC AS MR WELLS HAS WRITTEN FOR YOUR CURRENT
ISSUE FOR A WRITER OF MR WELLS STATURE HE IS LAMENTABLY DISAPPOINTING ANY
FAIRLY WELL INFORMED LAYMAN CAN COMPLETELY REFUTE AND DISPROVE ALMOST EVERY
QUESTIONED SENTENCE MR H G WELLS SHOULD STICK TO WRITING NOVELS TO AVOID
IMPAIRING HIS PROFESSIONAL REPUATION -- Josheph Gladstone
- NEW YORK NY -- H G WELLS BRAVELY KICKS A PEOPLE THAT
IS DOWN PILING FRESH TINDER ON THE FIRES OF A RELENTLESS ANTI-SEMITISM
-- MENDEL FISHER
- NEW YORK NY -- H G WELLS IS BRAZENLY SPREADING NORTORIOUS
LIES ABOUT THE JEWS HIS VIOLENT LANGUAGE BETRAYS A STREAK OF SADISM THAT
IS REVOLTING IF ANY MAN WHO PROFESSES TO BE AN ENLIGHTENED HUMAN BEING
CAN PREACH SUCH HENIOUS DISTORTIONS THEN MANKIND IS DOOMED TO UTTER DARKNESS
-- LEON GEL MAN PRESIDENT MIZRACHI ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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