Guest Post by Dr. Robert Malone
Argentine self interest or fundamental principles?
Having taken the time to research and cover (in this substack essay) the CV and anarcho-capitalist logic of Argentine President (and economist) Javier Milei, I was familiar with most of the points made during his speech at the WEF earlier this week. However, his comments supporting monopolies were new to me, and have been nagging at me ever since.
What is a Monopoly?
A monopoly is a situation in which a single company has complete control over the market for a particular product or service. This means that the company is the only player in the market and has no competition. As a result, the company can control prices, limit supply, and exert significant power over consumers.
How do Monopolies Form?
Monopolies typically form when there are significant barriers to entry into a market. These barriers can include high start-up costs, regulatory requirements, or patents that protect a company’s intellectual property. In many cases, existing companies may also engage in anti-competitive practices, such as price dumping, predatory pricing, or other tactics designed to push out potential competitors.
What do the US Constitution and Founding Fathers teach about Monopolies?
The US founding fathers expressed strong concerns about monopolies, and considered them detrimental to freedom and innovation. Thomas Jefferson, in 1787, wrote to James Madison expressing his dislike for the omission of a “restriction against monopolies” from the Bill of Rights. He emphasized the “wretched spirit of monopolies,” and Madison also called monopolies “among the greatest nuisances in Government.” The founders’ aversion to monopolies led to the inclusion of the right to be free from government-granted monopolies in the Constitution.
For further information on the aversion to government-granted monopolies of the founding fathers, please see the following:
“Monopolies and the Constitution: A History of Crony Capitalism” Steven G. Calabresi
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Julian P. Boyd et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. CHAPTER 14|Document 46. Thomas Jefferson to James Madison. 31 July 1788 Papers 13:442–43
I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our new constitution by nine states. It is a good canvas, on which some strokes only want retouching. What these are, I think are sufficiently manifested by the general voice from North to South, which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty generally understood that this should go to Juries, Habeas corpus, Standing armies, Printing, Religion and Monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modification of these suited to the habits of all the states. But if such cannot be found then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and Monopolies, in all cases, than not to do it in any. The few cases wherein these things may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude wherein the want of them will do evil. In disputes between a foreigner and a native, a trial by jury may be improper. But if this exception cannot be agreed to, the remedy will be to model the jury by giving the medietas linguae in civil as well as criminal cases. Why suspend the Hab. corp. in insurrections and rebellions? The parties who may be arrested may be charged instantly with a well defined crime. Of course the judge will remand them. If the publick safety requires that the government should have a man imprisoned on less probable testimony in those than in other emergencies; let him be taken and tried, retaken and retried, while the necessity continues, only giving him redress against the government for damages. Examine the history of England: see how few of the cases of the suspension of the Habeas corpus law have been worthy of that suspension. They have been either real treasons wherein the parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham-plots where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected. Yet for the few cases wherein the suspension of the hab. corp. has done real good, that operation is now become habitual, and the minds of the nation almost prepared to live under it’s constant suspension. A declaration that the federal government will never restrain the presses from printing any thing they please, will not take away the liability of the printers for false facts printed. The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished, does not give impunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error. The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14. years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression. If no check can be found to keep the number of standing troops within safe bounds, while they are tolerated as far as necessary, abandon them altogether, discipline well the militia, and guard the magazines with them. More than magazine-guards will be useless if few, and dangerous if many. No European nation can ever send against us such a regular army as we need fear, and it is hard if our militia are not equal to those of Canada or Florida. My idea o grtthen is, that tho’ proper exceptions to these general rules are desirable and probably practicable, yet if the exceptions cannot be agreed on, the establishment of the rules in all cases will do ill in very few. I hope therefore a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government, as they are already guarded against their state governments in most instances.
Despite this fundamental position, the Constitution does direct the US Federal government to grant limited monopolies relating to patents and copyrights, in order to promote innovation. This is codified in U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8 | Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Javier Miliei and Monopolies. Opportunism or Fundamental Philosophy?
Now that Miliei has been elected, the approved (false) corporate news narrative here in the USA has pivoted away from accusations of fascism to variations on the theme that he is just a tool of the globalists and their “World Economic Forum”. An opportunist wolf in sheep’s clothing. Having been subjected to three plus years of mischaracterization and active character assassination myself, I have come to deeply mistrust these simplistic delegitimizing narratives. But these types of repeated attacks have a way of embedding themselves into your brain, of becoming mind worms. An example of neurolinguistic programming in action.
Despite this reflexive wariness to approved narratives, the sections of his WEF speech in which he addressed monopolies did not ring true to me. I suspected that Milei was taking a pragmatic approach to communicating to WEF members, many of whom could be cast as the most successful monopolists since the roaring ‘20s, demonstrating that while he was challenging the WEF’s embrace of Socialism, he was not actually threatening their business and financial positions. And furthermore, that they could expect that Argentina under a Milei government would not interfere with their existing monopolies – and therefore by extension Argentina was safe for them as potential investors.
Here is the relevant section of the speech:
This problem lies mainly in the fact that not even supposedly libertarian economists understand what the market is. Because if they did understand, it would quickly be seen that it’s impossible for there to be something along the lines of market failures. The market is not a mere graph describing a curve of supply and demand. The market is a mechanism for social cooperation where you voluntarily exchange ownership rights. Therefore, based on this definition, talking about a market failure is an oxymoron. There are no market failures. If transactions are voluntary, the only context in which there can be a market failure is if there is coercion. And the only one that is able to coerce generally is the state, which holds a monopoly on violence.
Consequently, if someone considers that there is a market failure, I would suggest that they check to see if there’s state intervention involved. And if they find that that’s not the case, I would suggest that they check again because obviously there’s a mistake. Market failures do not exist. An example of these so-called market failures described by the neoclassicals are the concentrated structures of the economy. However, without increasing returns to scale functions, whose counterpart are the concentrated structures of the economy, we couldn’t possibly explain economic growth since the year 1800 until today. Isn’t this interesting? Since the year 1800 onwards, with population multiplying by eight or nine times, per capita GDP grown by over 15 times. So there are growing returns which took extreme poverty from 95% to 5%.
However, the presence of growing returns involves concentrated structures, what we would call a monopoly. How come then that something that has generated so much wellbeing for the neoclassical theory is a market failure? Neoclassical economists think outside of the box. When the model fails, you shouldn’t get angry with reality but rather with the model and change it. The dilemma faced by the neoclassical model is that they say they wish to perfect the function of the market by attacking what they consider to be failures. But in so doing, they don’t just open up the doors to socialism but also go against economic growth. An example, regulating monopolies, destroying their profits and destroying growing returns automatically would destroy economic growth. In other words, whatever you want to correct, a suppose market failure inexorably, as a result of not knowing what the market is or as a result of having fallen in love with a failed model, you’re opening up the doors to socialism and condemning people to poverty.
However, faced with the theoretical demonstration that state intervention is harmful and the empirical evidence that it has failed couldn’t have been otherwise. The solution to be proposed by collectivists is not greater freedom, but rather greater regulation. Which creates a downward spiral of regulations until we’re all poorer and the life of all of us depends on a bureaucrat sitting in a luxury office.
Forgive my cynicism, but the last four years have been pretty tough on my naïvety, and I have developed a tendency to see through a glass darkly. Could this be Milei signaling to the assembled WEF leadership that he was not actually a threat to them and their business interests? This hypothesis would be consistent with the narrative that Milei, like Italian PM Giorgia Meloni (also labeled by US corporate media as a Fascist prior to her election), was mostly going to turn out to be just another politician. Mostly talk and very little doing.
To investigate whether Milei’s position regarding monopolies was merely opportunistic or reflected fundamental economic/philosophical principles, once again I contacted the Brownstone Institute’s Jeffrey Tucker, who is one of the world experts on the thinking of Murray N Rothbard. In many ways, Rothbard’s insights are at the center of the Anarcho-capitalist intellectual universe, which Milei subscribes to.
I asked Jeffrey if Rothbard had written on monopolies and the role of the State, and if so what was his position? Without a moment’s delay, Mr. Tucker texted back that Rothbard had covered this in his key treatise “Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market”, and directed me to the section titled “Antitrust laws”. And there it was, reading as if Milei was channeling the ghost of the departed Rothbard. In essence, the argument is that the government is the one that creates monopolies through issuing a “grant of privilege” (such as were granted to the railway barons). Once again, we see the hand of the State picking winners and losers, and then when those selected to be winners have leveraged this privilege to develop massive wealth, the State has seen fit to step in with arbitrary and capricious punitive and coercive legal tools in a ham-handed attempt to mitigate the damage caused by its actions.
It may seem strange to the reader that one of the most important governmental checks on efficient competition, and therefore grants of quasi monopolies, are the antitrust laws. Very few, whether economists or others, have questioned the principle of the antitrust laws, particularly now that they have been on the statute books for some years. As is true of many other measures, evaluation of the antitrust laws has not proceeded from an analysis of their nature or of their necessary consequences, but from an impressionistic reaction to their announced aims. The chief criticism of these laws is that “they haven’t gone far enough.” Some of those most ardent in the proclamation of their belief in the “free market” have been most clamorous in calling for stringent antitrust laws and the “breakup of monopolies.” Even the most “right-wing” economists have only gingerly criticized certain antitrust procedures, without daring to attack the principle of the laws per se.
The only viable definition of monopoly is a grant of privilege from the government. It therefore becomes quite clear that it is impossible for the government to decrease monopoly by passing punitive laws. The only way for the government to decrease monopoly, if that is the desideratum, is to remove its own monopoly grants. The antitrust laws, therefore, do not in the least “diminish monopoly.” What they do accomplish is to impose a continual, capricious harassment of efficient business enterprise. The law in the United States is couched in vague, indefinable terms, permitting the Administration and the courts to omit defining in advance what is a “monopolistic” crime and what is not. Whereas Anglo-Saxon law has rested on a structure of clear definitions of crime, known in advance and discoverable by a jury after due legal process, the antitrust laws thrive on deliberate vagueness and ex post facto rulings. No businessman knows when he has committed a crime and when he has not, and he will never know until the government, perhaps after another shift in its own criteria of crime, swoops down upon him and prosecutes. The effects of these arbitrary rules and ex post facto findings of “crime” are manifold: business initiative is hampered; businessmen are fearful and subservient to the arbitrary rulings of government officials; and business is not permitted to be efficient in serving the consumer. Since business always tends to adopt those practices and that scale of activity which maximize profits and income and serve the consumers best, any harassment of business practice by government can only hamper business efficiency and reward inefficiency.
It is vain, however, to call simply for clearer statutory definitions of monopolistic practice. For the vagueness of the law results from the impossibility of laying down a cogent definition of monopoly on the market. Hence the chaotic shift of the government from one unjustifiable criterion of monopoly to another: size of firm, “closeness” of substitutes, charging a price “too high” or “too low” or the same as a competitor, merging that “substantially lessens competition,” etc. All these criteria are meaningless. An example is the criterion of substantially lessening competition. This implicitly assumes that “competition” is some sort of quantity. But it is not; it is a process, whereby individuals and firms supply goods on the market without using force.43 To preserve “competition” does not mean to dictate arbitrarily that a certain number of firms of a certain size have to exist in an industry or area; it means to see to it that men are free to compete (or not) unrestrained by the use of force.
The original Sherman Act stressed “collusion” in “restraint of trade.” Here again, there is nothing anticompetitive per se about a cartel, for there is conceptually no difference between a cartel, a merger, and the formation of a corporation: all consist of the voluntary pooling of assets in one firm to serve the consumers efficiently. If “collusion” must be stopped, and cartels must be broken up by the government, i.e., if to maintain competition it is necessary that co-operation be destroyed, then the “anti-monopolists” must advocate the complete prohibition of all corporations and partnerships. Only individually owned firms would then be tolerated. Aside from the fact that this compulsory competition and outlawed co-operation is hardly compatible with the “free market” that many antitrusters profess to advocate, the inefficiency and lower productivity stemming from the outlawing of pooled capital would send the economy a good part of the way from civilization to barbarism.
An individual becoming idle instead of working may be said to “restrain” trade, although he is simply not engaging in it rather than “restraining” it. If antitrusters wish to prevent idleness, which is the logical extension of the W.H. Hutt concept of consumers’ sovereignty, then they would have to pass a law compelling labor and outlawing leisure—a condition certainly close to slavery.44 But if we confine the definition of “restraint” to restraining the trade of others, then clearly there can be no restraint of trade at all on the free market—and only the government (or some other institution using violence) can restrain trade. And one conspicuous form of such restraint is antitrust legislation itself!
The attached video, titled “Microeconomics and Monopolies”, has been translated into English from the native Spanish, and demonstrates that Javier Milei credits Rothbard with transforming his understanding of monopolies. The video also demonstrates that Javier Milei is first and foremost an academic economist, not the far-right populist social media butterfly stereotype portrayed in the US Mockingbird Corporate Media.
Interviewer:
If we analyze everyday life problems, there is no doubt that people suffer a lot, especially with public services. You defended monopolies. But now let’s suppose a case which is actually real, that in Buenos Aires public services like electricity, gas and water are deficient. How can we prevent the formation of a monopoly? A private entity would initially avoid investing in these for 100 years due to scale issues, as it would be unprofitable. So how can we avoid monopolies?
Dr. Javier Milei:
On the other hand, if it’s a private entity, to whom do we make a complaint? The first problem with what you just said relates to the definition of monopolies. For me, the correct definition of monopolies is that of Lorca. What is a monopoly? It’s when we talk about only one entity directed towards the monarch who arbitrarily decided that someone had the monopoly to produce that sole good, and this was enforced with the repressive apparatus of the state. In other words, nothing good can come from this figure. Indeed, in the figure of monopoly that is captured in microeconomics, this precisely relates to that figure meaning where entry is impossible. From my point of view, the definition of monopoly has various problems for God because, in general, the micro perspective in this analysis of monopoly is a partial equilibrium and also of a single period.
That’s why I find Rothbard’s view on monopoly much more interesting. Rothbard’s approach is what led me to convert to the Austrian School, considering that I had spent over 20 years teaching microeconomics. My course had been considered the best microeconomics course in Argentina by Alfredo, may he rest in peace, Victor Beker and Omar Chisari. In other words, the three best microeconomists in Argentine history praised my course and considered it the best in Argentina. Didn’t you realize it was closed? Exactly. When I started to dedicate myself to growth topics, one of the things that explained growth are the presidential yields. So my question was how is it possible that in a situation where you had ninety-five percent of people below the extreme poverty line, in 200 years, that number falls to less than 10%. That is there is a clear presence of increasing returns because the population multiplies by more than six. We’re talking about the period from 1800 to 2000, not now. The numbers are even more profound now. Productivity increased more than nine times.
The question is, does God see the study as having increasing returns in what is called the hockey stick curve? The question now is how can something that has done so much good for humanity be considered bad in conventional economic theory? This was a point of contention for me. The key that allowed me to find a solution to this was Rothbard’s article, the Myth of Free Market Monopolies. This article is also included in the book, Man, Economy, and State. I remember the article is about 140 pages long, and the translation was done by the father of Alberto, Benegas Lynch, Jr. I, who am probably our greatest historical exponent of liberalism, realized something after finishing reading the article. For more than 20 years, I had been deceiving my students. It didn’t matter to me that the best microeconomists in Argentina said my course was fantastic. I admitted I was wrong and had been mistaken. That’s where the change happened. It’s interesting what Rothbard does, because you have to be careful with what you define as a monopoly.
On one hand, you have the definition of Lorca. Yes, and it’s clear that Lorca’s definition is bad. But it’s also clear that if you have a process where let’s say 20 companies are launched into competition, they all compete. That’s really not the case. This is a theoretical framework of perfect competition. No, no, no. The perfect competition model of the Austrians is something we disdain. Now, I’ll also explain why. There’s an article by Hayek about this. The perfect competition model is so foolish that it doesn’t have competition because there are no price setters. So, where’s the competition? There’s no competition in a market process where you have say, 20 entrepreneurs who will succeed. It’s the one who manages to sell a better product of higher quality at a better price. If that actually happens, one will win and the other 19 will go bankrupt.
At some point, you might look at the picture and think it’s a monopoly, but in reality, that person is not bad in any sense. They are a social benefactor. Why? Because the people are much better off always receiving better services.
In Conclusion
The evidence and examples cited above clearly establish that Dr. Javier Milei’s historic speech before the World Economic Forum was more than just a full-frontal critique of the WEF obsession with socialism, but was also a presentation of the fundamental economic logic framework which Milei intends to apply in governing Argentina. This logic is deeply rooted in Milei’s experience and thinking as an academic economist of the Austrian school, and in particular reflects the deep economic theory insights of Murray N. Rothbard. In some ways, this position is aligned with that of US Founding Father Thomas Jefferson in his aversion to Monopolies granted by the State, but the thinking of Rothbard on Monopolies is considerably more advanced than that of Jefferson, and benefits from the centuries of practical economic experience with Monopolies since Jefferson penned his thoughts to Madison.
Regarding the hypothesis that Milei’s recent statements to the WEF represent pragmatic opportunism, based on this deep dive into the topic, I conclude that these comments reflect deeply held views and insights into the nature of the free market and the role of Monopolies in an optimal free market system.
I am reminded that many of the infamous railroad tycoon “Robber Barons” of nineteenth century USA received privileged access and financing from the government via extensive use of lobbyists. They received monopolistic special licenses, per-mile subsidies, huge land grants, and low-interest loans. This would be an example of precisely what Rothbard warns of – the role of the State in the creation of Monopolies. In theory, a monopolist earns premium profits by restricting output and raising prices. This only occurs after the monopolist prices out or legally restricts (representing interference in the free market by the State) any competitor firms in the industry.
It is asserted by some who study Monopolies that there is no historical evidence that natural monopolies formed before the Sherman Antitrust Act. Under this theory, the Act itself created the market interference and insecurity consequent to a vaguely worded Act which enabled the Administrative State to interpret the Act in an arbitrary and capricious manner. This very ambiguity, reinforced by the eagerness of the Administrative State to functionally create law in interpreting such ambiguity, exacerbated by the Chevron Deference Supreme Court decision, in turn gives rise to free market distortions and indirectly enables the formation of the very State-sponsored Monopolies which Jefferson warned of.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Photo title:
“A Clockwork JAVIER”
Fascism = corporations run the state
Communism =the state runs corporations (kommissariats)
Fascism = corporations and the state are one
Communism = corporations and the state are one
The two sides of the same coin eh ?
Hitler and Stalin both thought so…and said as much to each other…before Operation Barbarossa.
Or?
Javier pulls a reverse Thunberg as a guest speaker at the WEF meeting.
If you are opposed to the globalist reset there is only one way.
Debt Jubilee!
“Odious Debt ” . look it up .
It’s biblical. One MORE reason they’ll never even consider it. There’s no “profit” in it.
Talk about from bad to worse…the Irish traded English rule for streetshitter….smh.
and a fag to boot.
Money is the only power behind thus googly-eyed, mumbly fag….but my capitalism making muh market free’er….reeee
The kikes hate you, you stupid potato nigger.
They hate all of US that aren’t them … and they won’t spare any opportunity to tell US or to show US just how deep their hatred of US is …
Alex is what happens when inbreeding goes too far.
You don’t want monopolies? Stop bailing them out like the Magic Mulatto did in 2008.
The magic mulatto was not President in 2008.
He is now, though.
That picture.
‘One eye’ is totally blocked out and darkened.
Make of it what you will.
They tell you who they are.
Saw that too.
They mock you with silly superstitions.
The worst part?
Most of you reject all superstitions…well,
almost all.. ..except for the ones you were programmed with since infancy, for those? Are your “truth”.
The same people who invented and sell horoscopes sell pretty much, all organized religions.
Yet, weep not my disciples…
For included in the classical religions is also enough truth to figure out the scam sides, and the practical sides.
It’s the tradiction creep and the parasitic clergy who stand between us and the rest of laying down our “burdens” [divisions, disagreements, arguments] and learn that we all must work together or we will all suffer together.
If you can’t compete in muh free market…capitalism is the strong weeding the weak out .
Under the freedom of trade the whole severity of the laws of political economy will be applied to the working classes. Is that to say that we are against Free Trade? No, we are for Free Trade, because by Free Trade all economical laws, with their most astounding contradictions, will act upon a larger scale, upon a greater extent of territory, upon the territory of the whole earth; and because from the uniting of all these contradictions into a single group, where they stand face to face, will result the struggle which will itself eventuate in the emancipation of the proletarians.
Engels, To Free Trade Congress at Brussels (1847)
“It cannot be too often repeated that what destroyed the Family in the modern world was Capitalism. No doubt it might have been Communism, if Communism had ever had a chance, outside that semi-Mongolian wilderness where it actually flourishes. But, so far as we are concerned, what has broken up households and encouraged divorces, and treated the old domestic virtues with more and more open contempt, is the epoch and Power of Capitalism. It is Capitalism that has forced a moral feud and a commercial competition between the sexes; that has destroyed the influence of the parent in favour of the influence of the employer; that has driven men from their homes to look for jobs; that has forced them to live near their factories or their firms instead of near their families; and, above all, that has encouraged, for commercial reasons, a parade of publicity and garish novelty, which is in its nature the death of all that was called dignity and modesty by our mothers and fathers.”
― G.K. Chesterton
“Capitalism is a value-decoding machine. Its objective is to completely decode society of any values that impede the free flows of capital, rendering everything and everyone a de facto commodity, transforming societies into markets. It can adapt to totalitarianism and other varieties of despotism when necessary, but left to its own devices, or … you know, granted dominion over the entire Earth, and every creeping thing that creeps upon it, it sets about decoding and destabilizing values, destabilizing value and meaning itself, until, ultimately, everything means anything, or nothing, or whatever the market determines it means or is worth at any given moment.”
CJ Hopkins : The War On Reality (Revisited)
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/hopkins-war-reality-revisited
“For the Marxist reviled the man of faith and ideals as bitterly as he did the financial exploiter. It was his creed that nothing existed in the world but matter and that no motive
could animate and man but self-interest. The great-organized institutions and societies based on faith and love and maintained by self-sacrifice though which man had raised himself above the primeval slime were to be ruthlessly destroyed and their adherents liquidated. First, they were to be undermined by criticism repeated again and again until
the corrosive ate into the old State so thoroughly that finally crumbled to pieces. Mob violence was to finish the process. The world would then be ready for an international
order that admitted of neither separate race, nor tradition, nor religion and in which all men would be subordinated as unthinking automatons to a single ruling clique Marxist intellectuals and bureaucrats .
For Hitler was accurate enough to realize that the Marxists did not stand for the freedom they pretended, but for a despotic uniformity, enforced by terror and annihilation of all who opposed them. In this, they differed only in their superior violence from the international financiers and exploiters they professed to supplant. Like Belloc and other earlier modern socials philosophers, Hitler perceived the twin roads down which mankind was being herded toward the servile state. First came the economic development which changed the social structure of the nation and substituted for its old feudal rulers, who at least had a certain sense of responsibility and noblesse oblige, the financier and the middle man who had none. Under the joint-stock company system, the search for profits became the sole guiding principle for life. The small artisan class slowly disappeared and the factory worker, who took his place, had scarcely any chance establish an independent existence of his own, but soon sank to the proletariat level. His present and future passed into the sole power of the man of figures who, calling himself his employer or master, acknowledged no responsibility for his moral or physical wellbeing. The hungry sheep looked up and were not fed.
The member of the new social class so created were “disinherited “in a treble sense. They were deprived of their independence. They were herded together in vast factory towns under conditions of living and employment that not only ruined their health, but robbed them of all faith in their country and its system of justice. And they were made to feel that the manual labour by which they lived was degrading and inferior to other forms of work. The ancient Order of the Peasantry, as Disraeli had once called it, had been transformed into a herd of helot without privilege or status.
But the process of social leveling was not yet complete. The poor were enslaved, but the higher and middle orders-the last repositories of culture and national social tradition of the past- still remained independent. Their independence was the final barrier that stood between the architects of constructive chaos and their goal. To destroy it no effort could be too great, And here the archenemy of the nation and society, the eternal and denationalized Jew, whom Hitler in his strange obsession saw in all places working to destroy the living state, seized his opportunity. By a masterpiece of ingenuity -“one of the most infamous deceits ever practiced”- the Jew turned the bitterness of the poor, whom his own usurious and irresponsible capitalism had dispossessed, against those who had till now escaped enslavement. “At first he had used the bourgeois class as a battering-ram against the feudal order; now he used the worker against the strongholds of the bourgeois. Just as he had succeeded in obtaining civil rights by intrigue carried on under the protection of the middle class, so now he hoped that joining in the struggle which the workers were waging for their existence he would be able to gain absolute power over them….He kowtowed to the worker, hypocritically pretended to feel pity for him and his lot and even to be indignant at the misery and poverty he had to endure….He showed himself eager to study his hardships, real or imaginary. He strove to waken a longing in the masses to change the conditions under which they lived. Artfully the Jew enkindled that innate yearning for social justice which is a typical Aryan characteristic. Once that desire became conscious it was transformed into hatred against those in more fortunate circumstances of life. The next stage was to give a precise philosophical explanation of this struggle for the elimination of social wrongs. And thus the Marxist doctine was invented.
Yet, the ultimate objective of that sinister Movement was not, it appeared, the triumph of the proletariat, but the domination of those who by exploitation had created the Proletariat – the Jews.”Without knowing it the worker is placing himself at the service of the very power against which he believes he is fighting. In appearance he is made fight against capital, while all the while he is furthering capitalistic interests.” The ultimate aims of Marxism and international Capitalism were in Hitler’s eyes the same: the concentration of all power in the hands of a few, and the elimination of every independent agency that could resist the process. “
Arthur Bryant Unfinished Victory 1940
“Untouched by the breath of God, unrestricted by human conscience, both capitalism and socialism are repulsive.” — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
It’s all DeepCapitalism©’s fault, brah!
“Central Bankers are not capitalists”
An interview with David Webb, author of “The Great Taking”
Some of my short takeaways:
-He had a near death experience, which was the motivator to writing the “Great Taking”.
-You only become truly free when you are no longer afraid of dying.
-“For a long time, I understood the privileged position of the people behind the central banks and their ability to control everything through creating money out of nothing,” he states. Furthermore, he explains that the “elites” exert their control by means of warfare. “When we go back through history, we can see that the central banking power is joined at the hip with warfare, and it always has been,” he explains. Additionally, he points out that Central Bankers are totalitarians, “They want instability; they are not capitalists.”
I will try and work on a short piece this weekend which I will try and explain how the the dollar’s loss as the world reserve currency is something that they have planned as well, and is a feature, not a bug, as part of the Global Reset.
https://stopshoutingblog.substack.com/p/central-bankers-are-not-capitalists
B_MC- After a great deal of thought, I have come to the conclusion that the Covid lockdown was the rollout study of how to contain the sheep when they actually do the rug pull aka, “The Great Taking”. Disease X would go hand in hand and the fear factor of a 100% deadly disease will keep the proles off the streets when they pull the plug. At least that’s the plan.
Will there actually be a deadly disease this time, will the sheep cower again while they lose everything? That is the question in a nutshell.
I have been saying for years that the elite pirate class was planning to take everything and push us over the cliff. I can only hope the critical thinkers will see this entire thing is a construct and avoid the mistakes the sheep will inevitably make. This will be worse than war in many ways , which is also a construct. None of this happens without the script and this script is a Doozy.
Bulk up food and water supplies and pay off homes and cars if you can.
Well said. You could easily call it the great testing. Many are fighting back, and in court too. Some even say we have turned the corner on the tyranny.
Yet we beat them on Covid. Their death shot is just killing off lots of sheep. The independent minded people who hate them the most are alive and well.
B_MC,
In some ways that was more informative about Webb then other past interviews…he is a great man and may be known one day soon as the Greatest Paul Revere of his generation.
In order of importance he has learned how to lay his persona down after a near death experience, stop fearing death because of it, is humble, has a wry sense of humor, owns a brilliant mind, can communicate complex realities with simple words, and seems to have the peace that knows no understanding.
Outstanding post!
Government is the root cause or the mechanism behind EVERY EVIL we face in this world today.
And men are behind ALL OF THEM.
See? You’re still mentally stuck at the Tower of Babel…only THEY rebelled against GOD’s Government, which led directly to the Governments YOU now HATE. Do you SEE the irony here?
Wrong. Your root causes are original sin and demonic sin.
The only true monopoly is granted by the government. Kings did this for money.
Example. If you pay the king x amount of money and x percentage of profit your company is the only company that can trade spices. Very profitable for the king and company.
A monopoly in a free capitalist economy at most is a temporary thing and competition will soon eliminate it.
Or the corollary, that a free capitalist economy (or anarcho) is a temporary thing, until the monopolist take it over and eliminate it.
History supports such way more so than a monopoly being temporary.
And fiat.
I don’t trust this guy. He’s all over the place. He talks some decent spiel but is on the WEF website and worked for a private pension company mostly owned by Blackrock. Seems like a neoliberal asset stripper.
Steve,
I’d say you were spot on!
JAVIER MILEI – ARGENTINA’S SLIMY WEF KLEPTOCRAT
WHAT’S THE COMMISSION ON 16 BILLION U.S. DOLLARS JAVIER?
A GLOBALIST SUICIDE PUPPET IS BLOWING UP IN ARGENTINIA – Video from Dec 15/23
REMARQUE88 CHANNEL – https://www.bitchute.com/channel/GISyVy9bw05Q/
JAVIER MILEI – ARGENTINA’S SLIMY WEF KLEPTOCRAT
WHAT’S THE COMMISSION ON 16 BILLION U.S. DOLLARS JAVIER?
A GLOBALIST SUICIDE PUPPET IS BLOWING UP IN ARGENTINIA – Video from Dec 15/23
Remarque88 Channel – https://www.bitchute.com/channel/GISyVy9bw05Q/