Sacred Destabilization • Part Seven: Antinomian Infiltration of Western Civilization

By Eric • September 3, 2022

Artist’s depiction of the Red Flag used by the “peasant class” in the onset of the French Revolution

“We make war against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism. The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed.”

Karl Marx

Introduction

This is Part Seven. The Sacred Destabilization will tie components of the Occult to “Secret Societies” – clubs of the elite/political/donor/ruling class – to the neoliberal, internationalist, corporatist oligarchy which rules over the resources. Power is possession of the Resources. Control. Law. Force. Self-anointed divinity. There is nothing motivating the Big People from ever relinquishing their power. Though, they masquerade in duplicitous behavior, with promoting agendas of “Diversity, Inclusion, Equity” once called Equality. They state they are fighting inequality. Yet to fight this ghost, they work to eliminate QUALITY. In America, some ten years ago we called it the “pussification of America.” The fuckery has been turned up quite a notch. The quality of your life. Of your children’s lives. And your posterity after that. And they are doing so for they know the competent, capable people are their greatest threat to the stability of their control. And since the promise of dystopia via “the New Normal” – there is an Acceleration underway.


Waddesdon Manor – a Rothschild house

The powerful have co-opted the political utopian ideologies of the Left to weaponize against the capable, competent people of the West – in order to bring about the fall of the threat of any competition. Critical Theory and Political Correctness are at the heart of the scheme.


Kassel in 1783, the capital of the Protestant state of Hesse, of which Prince Charles of Hesse-Cassel was one of the high-ranking figures linked to the Bavarian Illuminati.

Let us move through this history…



Sabbatean-Frankism to Destabilize Reality

The word “Radiance” from the Zohar was also interpreted into English as “Illuminate” – this is the root of the chosen name, Illuminati. In Sabbatean-Frankism, “who permits the forbidden” later became the Illuminist “do as thou wilt” the expression of their “religious” feeling. That is their tactic. They don’t advocate a Satanic kingdom. They gently steer you that way by questioning the existence of God, by demanding “sexual liberation,” “independence” for women, “internationalism,” “diversity” and “religious tolerance.”


The original insignia of the Bavarian Illuminati: the owl of Minerva, symbolising wisdom, on top of an opened book

Adam Weishaupt was not, he said, against religion per se, but rather against the way it was practiced and enforced. His thinking, he wrote, freed “from all religious prejudices; cultivated social virtues; and animated them with a deep, realizable and immediate sense of universal happiness. To achieve this, it was necessary to create “a state of freedom and moral equity, free from the obstacles imposed by subordination, rank and wealth.”




Weishuapt was given the task of adapting the ritual and rites of Illuminism for use of initiation into the Grand Orient Masonry. He also lived in Frankfort, Germany. Mirabeau introduced the Duc D’Orleans and his friend Talleyrand to Weishaupt who initiated them into the secrets of Grand Orient Masonry. By the end of 1773 Phillipe, Duc D’Orleans had introduced the Grand Orient Ritual into French Freemasonry. By 1788 there were more than two thousand lodges in France affiliated with Grand Orient Masonry and the number of individual adepts exceeded one hundred thousand. Thus the Jewish Illuminati under Moses Mendelssohn was introduced into Continental Freemasonry by Weishaupt under the guise of Lodges of the Grand Orient. The Jewish Illuminati next organized secret revolutionary committees within the lodges. Thus the revolutionary underground directors were established throughout France.


Initiation of an apprentice Freemason around 1800, an engraving (ca. 1805) based on that by Gabanon on the same subject dated 1745

Antinomian Spirit

  • Turn to sin, sin is holy, sin brings about the return of Yawweh
  • Adultury, pedophilia, incest, prostitution is acceptable
  • Blackmail, espionage, sabotage, usury, theft are acceptable
  • Fraud, deceit, lying, manipulating are acceptable
  • Inversion of all that is wholesome; family, gender roles, values, morals, ethics, reality itself

“Whiteness” – as displayed at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington DC in 2020. Rather – antinomian? Critical Theory running rampant.

French Revolution

“Revolution is a blow struck at a paralytic. … When the debt-grip has been firmly established, control of every form of publicity and political activity soon follows, together with a full grip on industrialists, [both management and labour].  The stage is then set for the revolutionary blow.  The grip of the right hand of finance establishes the paralysis;  while the revolutionary left hand that holds the dagger and deals the fatal blow.  Moral corruption facilitates the whole process.”

-Captain A.H.M. Ramsay: The Nameless War

The French revolution was a period of major uprising and upheaval for France, between 1789 and 1799, when the people fought for greater equality and representation against the ‘ancien regime’ – a long-standing system where the monarchy, aristocracy and Catholic Church held absolute power and privilege over ordinary people. The period was chaotic and brutal as France fought internally as well as with other nations in the struggle for a fairer constitution. During this time, the monarchy was overthrown, the Church disestablished and France declared a republic, sending Louis XIV and his despised Queen Marie Antoinette to the guillotine. Thousands more were executed at the guillotine, which became an enduring symbol of the events of the time. The revolutionary ideas unleashed by the French Revolution – among them liberté, egalité, and fraternité, influenced countries and peoples far and wide, setting up a new model for what revolution looked like and the powerful effects it could achieve. It sent shockwaves of fear through the British establishment, who inflicted harsh punishments on those who sought to protest or campaign for reform in the coming decades.


epresentation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789 painted by Jean-Jacques-François Le Barbier in 1789. His depiction includes the “eye of providence” and also the red Phrygian cap, two symbols associated with freemasonry.

During the early days of the French Revolution (1789 – 1799) the red flag was adopted by the Jacobins (the more extreme revolutionaries), and was presented as their statement of a willingness to die as martyrs to the cause. During the Reign of Terror (1793 – 94) it came to symbolise the martial law of the people in their fight against oppression. The red flag became part of the development of new national emblems for France (including the republican cockade), and was soon taken up by revolutionaries elsewhere.

In 1785 a courier was galloping madly on horseback from Frankfort to Paris carrying detailed information regarding the World Revolutionary Movement in general, and instructions for the planned French Revolution in particular. The instructions originated with the Jewish Illuminati in Germany and were addressed to Grand Master of the Grand Orient Masons in France. The Grand Orient Lodges had been established as the revolutionary underground by the Duc D’Orleans after he, as Grand Master of French Masonry, had been initiated into the Jewish Illuminati in Frankfort by Mirabeau. The courier was struck by lightning while passing through Ratisbon, and killed. The documents he carried fell into the hands of the police who turned them over to the Bavarian Government. A record of historical events told in chronological order connects the House of Rothschild with the Jewish Illuminati in Frankfort and the Illuminati within French Free Masonry known as the Grand Orient Lodges.

After the secret documents found on the body of the Courier had been read by the police, the documents were passed on to the Bavarian Government. The Bavarian Government ordered the police to raid the headquarters of the Illuminati. Further evidence was obtained which exposed the wide-spread ramifications of the World Revolutionary Movement. The Governments of France, England, Poland, Germany, Austria and Russia were informed of the International Nature of the revolutionary plot, but as has happened repeatedly since, the governments concerned took no serious action to stop the diabolical conspiracy. Why ? The only answer to this question is this : The power of the men behind the world revolutionary movement is greater than the power of any elected government.

After various governments failed to act on the information made known by the Bavarian police in 1785, the sister of Marie Antoinette wrote her personal letters warning her of the revolutionary plot; the connection of the International Bankers; the part Freemasonry was destined to play, and her own danger. Marie Antoinette (1755 – 1793) was the daughter of the Emperor Francis I of Austria. She married Louis XVI of France. She just couldn’t bring herself to believe the terrible things her own sister told her were being plotted by the Illuminati. To the repeated warnings sent by her sister, Marie Antoinette wrote long letters in reply. In regard to her sister’s claim that evidence had been obtained that the Illuminati operating under the guise of Philanthropic Freemasonry planned to destroy both the Church and State in France, Marie Antoinette replied : “I believe that as far as France is concerned, you worry too much about Freemasonry. Here it is far from having the significance it may have elsewhere in Europe.”How wrong she proved to be is a matter of history. Because she refused consistently to heed her sister’s repeated warnings she and her husband died under the guillotine.

Another piece of evidence which connects the English Jewish moneylenders with the plot to bring about the French Revolution was unearthed by Lady Queensborough, author of “Occult Theocrasy”.  While doing some research work she read a copy of “L’Anti-Semitisme” written by a Jew named Bernard Lazare and published in 1849.  With the leads obtained from this book Lady Queensborough claims Benjamin Goldsmid, his brother Abraham, and their partner Moses Mecatta, and his nephew Sir Moses Montifiore, were Jewish financiers in England who were definitely affiliated with their continental Jewish brethren in the plot to bring about the revolution in France.  Further evidence was found to tie Daniel Itsig of Berlin, and his son-in-law David Friedlander, and Herz Gergbeer of Alsace in with the Rothschilds and the plot. 


What’s coming – or already here?

It has been recorded how the Jewish Rabbis claimed the power to interpret the secret and hidden meanings of the writings of Holy Scripture by special revelation obtained through Cabala. Claiming to have such powers was of little avail unless they had an organization, or instrument, in their hands to put the inspiration they claimed to have received into effect. The money-lenders, certain High Priests, Directors, and Elders decided to organize a very secret society to serve their evil purpose — they named it “The Illuminati”. The word Illuminati is derived from the word Lucifer, which means Bearer of the Light, or Being of extraordinary brilliance. Therefore the Illuminati was Organized to carry out the inspirations given to the High Priests by Lucifer during the performance of their Cabalistic Rites. Thus Christ is proved justified when he named them of the Synagogue of Satan. The Supreme Council of the Jewish Illuminati numbered thirteen. They were, and still remain, the executive body of The Council of Thirty Three. The heads of the Jewish Illuminati claim to possess superlative knowledge in everything pertaining to religious doctrine, religious rites, and religious ceremonies. They were the men who conceived the Atheistic-materialistic ideology which in 1848 was published as “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx.

Origin of the Left v. Right Political Spectrum


Painting of the French parliament (unknown)

The modern usage of the political terms left and right comes from the French Revolution of 1789 when supporters of the king stood to the president’s right, and supporters of the revolution to his left.

This split between liberty and authority and split between individualism and collectivism AKA “social equality and inequality” (or more generally between liberalism and conservatism; AKA “left” and “right”) has defined the political left and right since its first usage in the French press of the time.

An example of The System’s disdain for anything “right-wing” – a clear contortion of reality; suggesting health, wellness,stamina, strength and conditioning will cause “wrong think”

A simple way to see this is in terms of classical government types: The French Revolutionaries wanted a more liberal democracy (where both liberalism and democracy are the ideologies of liberty and equality) and that the aristocracy wanted a more aristocratic form of Monarchy (the ideology of hierarchies, order and authority). So those who want Democracy, Liberalism, Equality, and Liberty are “to the political left” of those who want Monarchy, Conservatism, Authority (Illiberality), Hierarchy (Inequality), Tradition, and Order.


Karl Marx & 1848

Karl Marx said as much In the Communist Manifesto of 1848, in which he called for the abolition of the family. The family was already absent among the proletariat, Marx and his co-author Friedrich Engels wrote, and among the bourgeoisie, the family was a mere “money relation.”Most importantly, Marx said that communism would ensure that children would be educated by the state and not by their parents. Communists, he wrote in the Manifesto, would “rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.” The making of the “New Man” was the priority, and the family was an obstacle.

Karl Marx is related to the Rothschilds

Bolshevik Revolution

Who Financed Bolshevik Revolution?

The top Communist leaders have never been as hostile to their counterparts in the West, as the rhetoric suggests. They are quite friendly to the world’s leading financiers and have worked closely with them, when it suits their purposes. The Bolshevik revolution actually was financed by wealthy financiers in London and New York. Lenin and Trotsky were on the closest of terms with these moneyed interests both before and after the Revolution. Those hidden liaisons have continued to this day and occasionally pop to the surface, when we discover a David Rockefeller holding confidential meetings with a Mikhail Gorbachev in the absence of government sponsorship or diplomatic purpose.

One of the greatest myths of contemporary history is that the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was a popular uprising of the downtrodden masses against the hated ruling class of the Tsars. However, the planning, the leadership and especially the financing came entirely from outside Russia, mostly from financiers in Germany, Britain and the United States. Furthermore, the Rothschild Formula played a major role in shaping these events.

Jacob Schiff – the Financier

Jacob Schiff was head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Co. He was one of the principal backers of the Bolshevik revolution and personally financed Trotsky’s trip from New York to Russia. He was a major contributor to Woodrow Wilson’s presidential campaign and an advocate for passage of the Federal Reserve Act.

The Russo-Japanese War

This amazing story begins with the war between Russia and Japan in 1904. Jacob Schiff, who was head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Company, had raised the capital for large war loans to Japan. It was due to this funding that the Japanese were able to launch a stunning attack against the Russians at Port Arthur and the following year to virtually decimate the Russian fleet. In 1905 the Mikado awarded Jacob Schiff a medal, the Second Order of the Treasure of Japan, in recognition of his important role in that campaign.

The Manufactured Revolutionaries

During the two years of hostilities thousands of Russian soldiers and sailors were taken as prisoners. Sources outside of Russia, which were hostile to the Tsarist regime, paid for the printing of Marxist propaganda and had it delivered to the prison camps. Russian-speaking revolutionaries were trained in New York and sent to distribute the pamphlets among the prisoners and to indoctrinate them into rebellion against their own government.

When the war was ended, these officers and enlisted men returned home to become virtual seeds of treason against the Tsar. They were to play a major role a few years later in creating mutiny among the military during the Communist takeover of Russia.

Leon Trotsky – the Triple Agent

One of the best known Russian revolutionaries at that time was Leon Trotsky. In January of 1916 Trotsky was expelled from France and came to the United States. It has been claimed that his expenses were paid by Jacob Schiff. There is no documentation to substantiate that claim, but the circumstantial evidence does point to a wealthy donor in New York.

He remained for several months, while writing for a Russian socialist paper, the Novy Mir (New World) and giving revolutionary speeches at mass meetings in New York City. According to Trotsky himself, on many occasions a chauffeured limousine was placed at his service by a wealthy friend, identified as Dr. M.

The doctor’s wife took my wife and the boys out driving and was very kind to them. But she was a mere mortal, whereas the chauffeur was a magician, a titan, a superman! With the wave of his hand he made the machine obey his slightest command. To sit beside him was the supreme delight. When they went into a tea room, the boys would anxiously demand of their mother, “Why doesn’t the chauffeur come in?” (Leon Trotsky: My Life, New York publisher: Scribner’s, 1930, p. 277)

It must have been a curious sight to see the family of the great socialist radical, defender of the working class, enemy of capitalism, enjoying the pleasures of tea rooms and chauffeurs, the very symbols of capitalist luxury.

Overthrow of the Tsarist Regime

On March 23, 1917 a mass meeting was held at Carnegie Hall to celebrate the abdication of Nicolas II, which meant the overthrow of Tsarist rule in Russia. Thousands of socialists, Marxists, nihilists and anarchists attended to cheer the event. The following day there was published on page two of the New York Times a telegram from Jacob Schiff, which had been read to this audience. He expressed regrets, that he could not attend and then described the successful Russian revolution as “…what we had hoped and striven for these long years”. (Mayor Calls Pacifists Traitors, The New York Times, March 24, 1917, p. 2)

In the February 3, 1949 issue of the New York Journal American Schiff’s grandson, John, was quoted by columnist Cholly Knickerbocker as saying that his grandfather had given about $20 million for the triumph of Communism in Russia. To appraise Schiff’s motives for supporting the Bolsheviks, we must remember, that he was a Jew and that Russian Jews had been persecuted under the Tsarist regime. Consequently the Jewish community in America was inclined to support any movement, which sought to topple the Russian government and the Bolsheviks were excellent candidates for the task.

However, there were also strong financial incentives for Wall Street firms, such as Kuhn, Loeb and Company, of which Schiff was a senior partner, to see the old regime fall into the hands of revolutionaries, who would agree to grant lucrative business concessions in the future in return for financial support today.

Trotsky’s arrest

When Trotsky returned to Petrograd in May of 1917 to organize the Bolshevik phase of the Russian Revolution, he carried $10,000 for travel expenses, a generously ample fund considering the value of the dollar at that time. Trotsky was arrested by Canadian and British naval intelligence, when the ship, on which he was traveling, the S.S. Kristianiafjord, put in at Halifax. The money in his possession is now a matter of official record. The source of that money has been the focus of much speculation, but the evidence strongly suggests, that its origin was the German government. It was a sound investment.

Trotsky was not arrested on a whim. He was recognized as a threat to the best interests of England, Canada’s mother country in the British Commonwealth. Russia was an ally of England in the First World War, which then was raging in Europe. Anything, that would weaken Russia – and that certainly included internal revolution – would be, in effect, to strengthen Germany and weaken England.

In New York on the night before his departure Trotsky had given a speech, in which he said: “I am going back to Russia to overthrow the provisional government and stop the war with Germany.” (A full report on this meeting had been submitted to the U.S. Military Intelligence. See Senate Document No. 62, 66th Congress, Report and Hearings of the Subcommittee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 1919, Vol. II, p. 2680.) Trotsky therefore represented a real threat to England’s war effort. He was arrested as a German agent and taken as a prisoner of war.

Trotsky’s mysterious release
With this in mind we can appreciate the great strength of those mysterious forces both in England and the United States, that intervened on Trotsky’s behalf. Immediately telegrams began to come into Halifax from such divergent sources, as an obscure attorney in New York City, from the Canadian Deputy Postmaster-General and even from a high-ranking British military officer, all inquiring into Trotsky’s situation and urging his immediate release.

The head of the British Secret Service in America at the time was Sir William Wiseman, who, as fate would have it, occupied the apartment directly above the apartment of Edward Mandell House and who had become fast friends with him. House advised Wiseman, that President Wilson wished to have Trotsky released. Wiseman advised his government and the British Admiralty issued orders on April 21st, that Trotsky was to be sent on his way. (“Why Did We Let Trotsky Go? How Canada Lost an Opportunity to Shorten the War”, MacLeans magazine, Canada, June 1919. Also see Martin, pp. 163-164.) It was a fateful deecision, that would affect not only the outcome of the war, but the future of the entire world.

President Woodrow Wilson – the Fairy Godmother

It would be a mistake to conclude, that Jacob Schiff and Germany were the only players in this drama. Trotsky could not have gone even as far as Halifax without having been granted an American passport and this was accomplished by the personal intervention of

President Wilson.

President Woodrow Wilson was the fairy godmother, who provided Trotsky with a passport to return to Russia to “carry forward” the revolution… At the same time careful State Department bureaucrats, concerned about such revolutionaries entering Russia, were unilaterally attempting to tighten up passport procedures. (Antony C. Sutton, Ph. D.: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, published by Arlington House in New Rochelle, NY, 1974, p. 25)

Robert Minor’s Deelighted

In 1911 the St. Louis Dispatch published a cartoon by a Bolshevik named Robert Minor. Minor was later to be arrested in Tsarist Russia for revolutionary activities and in fact was himself bankrolled by famous Wall Street financiers. Since we may safely assume, that he knew his topic well, his cartoon is of great historical importance. It portrays Karl Marx with a book entitled Socialism under his arm, standing amid a cheering crowd on Wall Street. Gathered around and greeting him with enthusiastic handshakes are characters in silk hats identified as John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, Morgan partner George W. Perkins and Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party.

Deelighted – This cartoon by Robert Minor appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1911. It shows Karl Marx surrounded by enthusiastic Wall Street financiers: Morgan partner George Perkins, J.P. Morgan, John Ryan of National City Bank, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. Immediately behind Marx is Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party.

What emerges from this sampling of events is a clear pattern of strong support for Bolshevism coming from the highest financial and political power centers in the United States; from men, who supposedly were “capitalists” and who according to conventional wisdom should have been the mortal enemies of socialism and communism. Nor was this phenomenon confined to the United States.

The British Betrayal

Trotsky in his book My Life tells of a British financier, who in 1907 gave him a “large loan” to be repaid after the overthrow of the Tsar. Arsene de Goulevitch, who witnessed the Bolshevik Revolution firsthand, has identified both the name of the financier and the amount of the loan.

“In private interviews”, he said, “I have been told that over 21 million rubles were spent by Lord Alfred Milner in financing the Russian Revolution… The financier just mentioned was by no means alone among the British to support the Russian revolution with large financial donations.” Another name specifically mentioned by de Goulevitch was that of Sir George Buchanan, the British Ambassador to Russia at the time. (See Arsene de Goulevitch: Czarism and Revolution, published by Omni Publications in Hawthorne, California, no date; rpt. from 1962 French edition, pp. 224, 230)

It was one thing for Americans to undermine Tsarist Russia and thus indirectly help Germany in the war, because Americans were not then into it, but for British citizens to do so was tantamount to treason. To understand, what higher loyalty compelled these men to betray their battlefield ally and to sacrifice the blood of their own countrymen, we must take a look at the unique organization, to which they belonged.

The Round Table Agents

In Russia prior to and during the revolution there were many local observers, tourists and newsmen, who reported, that British and American agents were everywhere, particularly in Petrograd, providing money for insurrection. One report said, for example, that British agents were seen handing out 25-rouble notes to the men at the Pavlovski Regiment just a few hours, before it mutinied against its officers and sided with the revolution. The subsequent publication of various memoirs and documents made it clear, that this funding was provided by Lord Alfred Milner and channeled through Sir George Buchanan, who was the British Ambassador to Russia at the time.

Round Table members were once again working both sides of the conflict to weaken and topple a target government. Tsar Nicholas had every reason to believe, that since the British were Russia’s allies in the war against Germany, British officials would be the last persons on Earth to conspire against him. Yet the British Ambassador himself represented the hidden group, which was financing the regime’s downfall.

The Red Cross’s Military Mission

The Round Table Agents from America did not have the advantage of using the diplomatic service as cover and therefore had to be considerably more ingenious. They came not as diplomats or even as interested businessmen, but disguised as Red Cross officials on a humanitarian mission. The group consisted almost entirely of financiers, lawyers and accountants from New York banks and investment houses. They simply had overpowered the American Red Cross organization with large contributions and in effect purchased a franchise to operate in its name.

The 1910 [Red Cross] fund-raising campaign for $2 million, for example, was successful only, because it was supported by these wealthy residents of New York City. J.P. Morgan himself contributed $100,000… Henry P. Davison [a Morgan partner] was chairman of the 1910 New York Fund-Raising Committee and later became chairman of the War Council of the American Red Cross… The Red Cross was unable to cope with the demands of World War I. and in effect was taken over by these New York bankers. (Sutton: Revolution, p. 72)

For the duration of the war the Red Cross had been made nominally a part of the armed forces and subject to orders from the proper military authorities. It was not clear, who these authorities were and in fact there were never any orders, but the arrangement made it possible for the participants to receive military commissions and wear the uniform of American army officers. The entire expense of the Red Cross Mission in Russia, including the purchase of uniforms, was paid for by the man, who was appointed by President Wilson to become its head, “Colonel” William Boyce Thompson.

William Boyce Thompson – the American Tsar

Thompson was a classical specimen of the Round Table network. Having begun his career as a speculator in copper mines, he soon moved into the world of high finance.

He refinanced the American Woolen Company and the Tobacco Products Company;
He launched the Cuban Cane Sugar Company;
He purchased controlling interest in the Pierce Arrow Motor Car Company;
He organized the Submarine Boat Corporation and the Wright-Martin Aeroplane Company;
He became a director of the Chicago Rock Island & Pacific Railway, the Magma Arizona Railroad and the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company;
He was one of the heaviest stockholders in the Chase National Bank;
He was the agent for J.P. Morgan’s British securities operation;
He became the first full-time director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most important bank in the Federal Reserve System;
He contributed a quarter-million dollars to the Red Cross.

When Thompson arrived in Russia, he made it clear, that he was not your typical Red Cross representative. According to Hermann Hagedorn, Thompson’s biographer:

He deliberately created the kind of setting, which would be expected of an American magnate: established himself in a suite in the Hotel de l’Europe, bought a French limousine, went dutifully to receptions and teas and evinced an interest in objects of art. Society and the diplomats, noting that here was a man of parts and power, began to flock about him. He was entertained at the embassies, at the houses of Kerensky’s ministers. It was discovered, that he was a collector and those with antiques to sell fluttered around him offering him miniatures, Dresden china, tapestries, even a palace or two. (Hermann Hagedorn: The Magnate: William Boyce Thompson and His Time, published by Reynal & Hitchcock, New York, 1935, pp. 192-93)

When Thompson attended the opera, he was given the imperial box. People on the street called him the American Tsar. And it is not surprising, that according to George Kennan, “He was viewed by the Kerensky authorities as the ‘real’ ambassador of the United States.” (George F. Kennan: Russia Leaves the War: Soviet-American Relations, 1917-1920 published by Princeton University Press in Princeton, NJ, 1956, p. 60)

Funding Both Sides

It is now a matter of record, that Thompson syndicated the purchase on Wall Street of Russian bonds in the amount of ten million roubles. In addition, he gave over two million roubles to Aleksandr Kerensky for propaganda purposes inside Russia and with J.P. Morgan gave the rouble equivalent of one million dollars to the Bolsheviks for the spreading of revolutionary propaganda outside of Russia, particularly in Germany and Austria. It was the agitation made possible by this funding, that led to the abortive German Spartacus Revolt of 1918.

At first it may seem incongruous, that the Morgan group would provide funding for both Kerensky and Lenin. These men may have both been socialist revolutionaries, but they were miles apart in their plans for the future and in fact were bitter competitors for control of the new government. But the tactic of funding both sides in a political contest by then had been refined by members of the Round Table into a fine art.

Subjugation of Independent Republics

Towards the middle of the twentieth century, the Colonial Era started winding down, and independent republics started coming up. Starting from 1920 to 1970, huge economic assets were created in more than forty or so countries under the tight control and supervision of their own watchful governments. Though there were complaints about some level of mismanagement of the funds, overall trillions of dollars worth of economic assets were created in these countries, these assets being off-limits to every Colonial Power.

Every war that happened during this period, every coup that took place were aimed at knocking down these republics one after the other and sucking their economic resources into the un-maintainable, wasteful Western Economic Lifestyle based on faulty economic theories. After thirty such countries were knocked down, the process of divide and rule and plunder was christened with a nice-sounding name: “Privatization and Liberalization”. The theoretical framework of this was proposed by none other than the Chairman of the Bank of England around 1971. The final frontiers in this process of knocking down the country’s economic resources were Russia and India. Excerpts from GreatGameIndia‘s exclusive book India in Cognitive Dissonance.

Neo-Marxism

Going beyond the economic mechanisms involved in Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto is the aim to dissect these other attributes of the West; Patriarchy, Gender dynamics, race, faith, culture, history.

Hungary

Hungarian communists managed to establish a Hungarian soviet for a short time in 1919. They quickly realized that the way to completely change society was to destroy the most important civil society institution, the family. Its culture and education commissar, George Lukacs, therefore instituted a system to instruct young children into sexual perversions.

Lukacs’s biographer described it this way: “Special lectures were organized in schools and literature printed and distributed to ‘instruct’ children about free love, about the nature of sexual intercourse, about the archaic nature of bour­geois family codes, about the outdatedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasure. Children urged thus to reject and deride paternal authority and the authority of the church, and to ignore precepts of morality.”None of this went down well with the typical Hungarian, needless to say, and the Hungarian soviet lasted only 133 days.

Luckas escaped with this life and influenced a group of neo-communists academics in Germany that we know as “the Frankfurt School.”


Frankfurt School theorists

The Frankfurt School

All the tensions within the German academic community which accompanied the changes in political, cultural and intellectual life in Germany since 1890 were reproduced in the Institute for Social Research from its inception in Frankfurt in 1923. These changes were widely diagnosed as a ‘crisis in culture’. By this very definition the ‘crisis’ was deplored yet exacerbated. The Institute carried these tensions with it into exile and when it returned to Germany after the war and found itself the sole heir to a discredited tradition the inherited tensions became even more acute. These tensions are evident in the work of most of the School’s members, and most clearly, self-consciously and importantly in the work of Theodor W. Adorno.

Three of their most famous scholars were Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse. One of their key intellectual contributions was the idea that it was the family that created the authoritarian character. The patriarchal father created in his children the desire to obey and submit to authority.

The single, most important organizational component of this conspiracy was a Communist thinktank called the Institute for Social Research (I.S.R.), but popularly known as the Frankfurt School.

In the heady days immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was widely believed that proletarian revolution would momentarily sweep out of the Urals into Europe and, ultimately, North America. It did not; the only two attempts at workers’ government in the West— in Munich and Budapest—lasted only months. The Communist International (Comintern) therefore began several operations to determine why this was so. One such was headed by Georg Lukacs, a Hungarian aristocrat, son of one of the Hapsburg Empire’s leading bankers. Trained in Germany and already an important literary theorist, Lukacs became a Communist during World War I, writing as he joined the party, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” Lukacs was well-suited to the Comintern task: he had been one of the Commissars of Culture during the short-lived Hungarian Soviet in Budapest in 1919; in fact, modern historians link the shortness of the Budapest experiment to Lukacs’ orders mandating sex education in the schools, easy access to contraception, and the loosening of divorce laws—all of which revulsed Hungary’s Roman Catholic population.

Fleeing to the Soviet Union after the counter-revolution, Lukacs was secreted into Germany in 1922, where he chaired a meeting of Communist-oriented sociologists and intellectuals. This meeting founded the Institute for Social Research. Over the next decade, the Institute worked out what was to become the Comintern’s most successful psychological warfare operation against the capitalist West.

Lukacs identified that any political movement capable of bringing Bolshevism to the West would have to be, in his words, “demonic”; it would have to “possess the religious power which is capable of filling the entire soul; a power that characterized primitive Christianity.” However, Lukacs suggested, such a “messianic” political movement could only succeed when the individual believes that his or her actions are determined by “not a personal destiny, but the destiny of the community” in a world “that has been abandoned by God [emphasis added-MJM].” Bolshevism worked in Russia because that nation was dominated by a peculiar gnostic form of Christianty typified by the writings of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. “The model for the new man is Alyosha Karamazov,” said Lukacs, referring to the Dostoyevsky character who willingly gave over his personal identity to a holy man, and thus ceased to be “unique, pure, and therefore abstract.”

This abandonment of the soul’s uniqueness also solves the problem of “the diabolic forces lurking in all violence” which must be unleashed in order to create a revolution. In this context, Lukacs cited the Grand Inquisitor section of Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, noting that the Inquisitor who is interrogating Jesus, has resolved the issue of good and evil: once man has understood his alienation from God, then any act in the service of the “destiny of the community” is justified; such an act can be “neither crime nor madness…. For crime and madness are objectifications of transcendental homelessness.”

According to an eyewitness, during meetings of the Hungarian Soviet leadership in 1919 to draw up lists for the firing squad, Lukacs would often quote the Grand Inquisitor: “And we who, for their happiness, have taken their sins upon ourselves, we stand before you and say, ‘Judge us if you can and if you dare.’ “

The task of the Frankfurt School, then, was first, to undermine the Christian legacy through an “abolition of culture” (Aufhebung der Kultur in Lukacs’ German); and, second, to determine new cultural forms which would increase the alienation of the population, thus creating a “new barbarism.” To this task, there gathered in and around the Frankfurt School an incredible assortment of not only Communists, but also non-party socialists, radical phenomenologists, Zionists, renegade Freudians, and at least a few members of a self-identified “cult of Astarte.” The variegated membership reflected, to a certain extent, the sponsorship: although the Institute for Social Research started with Comintern support, over the next three decades its sources of funds included various German and American universities, the Rockefeller Foundation, Columbia Broadcasting System, the American Jewish Committee, several American intelligence services, the Office of the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany, the International Labour Organization, and the Hacker Institute, a posh psychiatric clinic in Beverly Hills.

Similarly, the Institute’s political allegiances: although top personnel maintained what might be called a sentimental relationship to the Soviet Union (and there is evidence that some of them worked for Soviet intelligence into the 1960’s), the Institute saw its goals as higher than that of Russian foreign policy. Stalin, who was horrified at the undisciplined, “cosmopolitan” operation set up by his predecessors, cut the Institute off in the late 1920’s, forcing Lukacs into “self-criticism,” and briefly jailing him as a German sympathizer during World War II.

Lukacs survived to briefly take up his old post as Minister of Culture during the anti-Stalinist Imre Nagy regime in Hungary. Of the other top Institute figures, the political perambulations of Herbert Marcuse are typical. He started as a Communist; became a protégé of philosopher Martin Heidegger even as the latter was joining the Nazi Party; coming to America, he worked for the World War II Office of Strategic Services (OSS), and later became the U.S. State Department’s top analyst of Soviet policy during the height of the McCarthy period; in the 1960’s, he turned again, to become the most important guru of the New Left; and he ended his days helping to found the environmentalist extremist Green Party in West Germany.

In all this seeming incoherence of shifting positions and contradictory funding, there is no ideological conflict. The invariant is the desire of all parties to answer Lukacs’ original question: “Who will save us from Western civilization?”

Perhaps the most important, if least-known, of the Frankfurt School’s successes was the shaping of the electronic media of radio and television into the powerful instruments of social control which they represent today. This grew out of the work originally done by two men who came to the Institute in the late 1920’s, Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin.

After completing studies at the University of Frankfurt, Walter Benjamin planned to emigrate to Palestine in 1924 with his friend Gershom Scholem (who later became one of Israel’s most famous philosophers, as well as Judaism’s leading gnostic), but was prevented by a love affair with Asja Lacis, a Latvian actress and Comintern stringer. Lacis whisked him off to the Italian island of Capri, a cult center from the time of the Emperor Tiberius, then used as a Comintern training base; the heretofore apolitical Benjamin wrote Scholem from Capri, that he had found “an existential liberation and an intensive insight into the actuality of radical communism.”

Lacis later took Benjamin to Moscow for further indoctrination, where he met playwright Bertolt Brecht, with whom he would begin a long collaboration; soon thereafter, while working on the first German translation of the drug-enthusiast French poet Baudelaire, Benjamin began serious experimentation with hallucinogens. In 1927, he was in Berlin as part of a group led by Adorno, studying the works of Lukacs; other members of the study group included Brecht and his composer-partner Kurt Weill; Hans Eisler, another composer who would later become a Hollywood film score composer and co-author with Adorno of the textbook Composition for the Film; the avant-garde photographer Imre Moholy-Nagy; and the conductor Otto Klemperer.

From 1928 to 1932, Adorno and Benjamin had an intensive collaboration, at the end of which they began publishing articles in the Institute’s journal, the Zeitschrift fär Sozialforschung. Benjamin was kept on the margins of the Institute, largely due to Adorno, who would later appropriate much of his work. As Hitler came to power, the Institute’s staff fled, but, whereas most were quickly spirited away to new deployments in the U.S. and England, there were no job offers for Benjamin, probably due to the animus of Adorno. He went to France, and, after the German invasion, fled to the Spanish border; expecting momentary arrest by the Gestapo, he despaired and died in a dingy hotel room of self-administered drug overdose.

Benjamin’s work remained almost completely unknown until 1955, when Scholem and Adorno published an edition of his material in Germany. The full revival occurred in 1968, when Hannah Arendt, Heidegger’s former mistress and a collaborator of the Institute in America, published a major article on Benjamin in the New Yorker magazine, followed in the same year by the first English translations of his work. Today, every university bookstore in the country boasts a full shelf devoted to translations of every scrap Benjamin wrote, plus exegesis, all with 1980’s copyright dates.

Adorno was younger than Benjamin, and as aggressive as the older man was passive. Born Teodoro Wiesengrund-Adorno to a Corsican family, he was taught the piano at an early age by an aunt who lived with the family and had been the concert accompanist to the international opera star Adelina Patti. It was generally thought that Theodor would become a professional musician, and he studied with Bernard Sekles, Paul Hindemith’s teacher. However, in 1918, while still a gymnasium student, Adorno met Siegfried Kracauer. Kracauer was part of a Kantian-Zionist salon which met at the house of Rabbi Nehemiah Nobel in Frankfurt; other members of the Nobel circle included philosopher Martin Buber, writer Franz Rosenzweig, and two students, Leo Lowenthal and Erich Fromm. Kracauer, Lowenthal, and Fromm would join the I.S.R. two decades later. Adorno engaged Kracauer to tutor him in the philosophy of Kant; Kracauer also introduced him to the writings of Lukacs and to Walter Benjamin, who was around the Nobel clique.

In 1924, Adorno moved to Vienna, to study with the atonalist composers Alban Berg and Arnold Schönberg, and became connected to the avant-garde and occult circle around the old Marxist Karl Kraus. Here, he not only met his future collaborator, Hans Eisler, but also came into contact with the theories of Freudian extremist Otto Gross. Gross, a long-time cocaine addict, had died in a Berlin gutter in 1920, while on his way to help the revolution in Budapest; he had developed the theory that mental health could only be achieved through the revival of the ancient cult of Astarte, which would sweep away monotheism and the “bourgeois family.”

By 1928, Adorno and Benjamin had satisfied their intellectual wanderlust, and settled down at the I.S.R. in Germany to do some work. As subject, they chose an aspect of the problem posed by Lukacs: how to give aesthetics a firmly materialistic basis. It was a question of some importance, at the time. Official Soviet discussions of art and culture, with their wild gyrations into “socialist realism” and “proletkult,” were idiotic, and only served to discredit Marxism’s claim to philosophy among intellectuals. Karl Marx’s own writings on the subject were sketchy and banal, at best.

In essence, Adorno and Benjamin’s problem was Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, Leibniz had once again obliterated the centuries-old gnostic dualism dividing mind and body, by demonstrating that matter does not think. A creative act in art or science apprehends the truth of the physical universe, but it is not determined by that physical universe. By self-consciously concentrating the past in the present to effect the future, the creative act, properly defined, is as immortal as the soul which envisions the act. This has fatal philosophical implications for Marxism, which rests entirely on the hypothesis that mental activity is determined by the social relations excreted by mankind’s production of its physical existence.

Marx sidestepped the problem of Leibniz, as did Adorno and Benjamin, although the latter did it with a lot more panache. It is wrong, said Benjamin in his first articles on the subject, to start with the reasonable, hypothesizing mind as the basis of the development of civilization; this is an unfortunate legacy of Socrates. As an alternative, Benjamin posed an Aristotelian fable in interpretation of Genesis: Assume that Eden were given to Adam as the primordial physical state. The origin of science and philosophy does not lie in the investigation and mastery of nature, but in the naming of the objects of nature; in the primordial state, to name a thing was to say all there was to say about that thing. In support of this, Benjamin cynically recalled the opening lines of the Gospel according to St. John, carefully avoiding the philosophically-broader Greek, and preferring the Vulgate (so that, in the phrase “In the beginning was the Word,” the connotations of the original Greek word logos—speech, reason, ratiocination, translated as “Word”—are replaced by the narrower meaning of the Latin word verbum). After the expulsion from Eden and God’s requirement that Adam eat his bread earned by the sweat of his face (Benjamin’s Marxist metaphor for the development of economies), and God’s further curse of Babel on Nimrod (that is, the development of nation-states with distinct languages, which Benjamin and Marx viewed as a negative process away from the “primitive communism” of Eden), humanity became “estranged” from the physical world.

Thus, Benjamin continued, objects still give off an “aura” of their primordial form, but the truth is now hopelessly elusive. In fact, speech, written language, art, creativity itself—that by which we master physicality—merely furthers the estrangement by attempting, in Marxist jargon, to incorporate objects of nature into the social relations determined by the class structure dominant at that point in history. The creative artist or scientist, therefore, is a vessel, like Ion the rhapsode as he described himself to Socrates, or like a modern “chaos theory” advocate: the creative act springs out of the hodgepodge of culture as if by magic. The more that bourgeois man tries to convey what he intends about an object, the less truthful he becomes; or, in one of Benjamin’s most oft-quoted statements, “Truth is the death of intention.”

This philosophical sleight-of-hand allows one to do several destructive things. By making creativity historically-specific, you rob it of both immortality and morality. One cannot hypothesize universal truth, or natural law, for truth is completely relative to historical development. By discarding the idea of truth and error, you also may throw out the “obsolete” concept of good and evil; you are, in the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, “beyond good and evil.” Benjamin is able, for instance, to defend what he calls the “Satanism” of the French Symbolists and their Surrealist successors, for at the core of this Satanism “one finds the cult of evil as a political device … to disinfect and isolate against all moralizing dilettantism” of the bourgeoisie. To condemn the Satanism of Rimbaud as evil, is as incorrect as to extol a Beethoven quartet or a Schiller poem as good; for both judgments are blind to the historical forces working unconsciously on the artist.

Thus, we are told, the late Beethoven’s chord structure was striving to be atonal, but Beethoven could not bring himself consciously to break with the structured world of Congress of Vienna Europe (Adorno’s thesis); similarly, Schiller really wanted to state that creativity was the liberation of the erotic, but as a true child of the Enlightenment and Immanuel Kant, he could not make the requisite renunciation of reason (Marcuse’s thesis). Epistemology becomes a poor relation of public opinion, since the artist does not consciously create works in order to uplift society, but instead unconsciously transmits the ideological assumptions of the culture into which he was born. The issue is no longer what is universally true, but what can be plausibly interpreted by the self-appointed guardians of the Zeitgeist.

Thus, for the Frankfort School, the goal of a cultural elite in the modern, “capitalist” era must be to strip away the belief that art derives from the self-conscious emulation of God the Creator; “religious illumination,” says Benjamin, must be shown to “reside in a profane illumination, a materialistic, anthropological inspiration, to which hashish, opium, or whatever else can give an introductory lesson.” At the same time, new cultural forms must be found to increase the alienation of the population, in order for it to understand how truly alienated it is to live without socialism. “Do not build on the good old days, but on the bad new ones,” said Benjamin.

The proper direction in painting, therefore, is that taken by the late Van Gogh, who began to paint objects in disintegration, with the equivalent of a hashish-smoker’s eye that “loosens and entices things out of their familiar world.” In music, “it is not suggested that one can compose better today” than Mozart or Beethoven, said Adorno, but one must compose atonally, for atonalism is sick, and “the sickness, dialectically, is at the same time the cure….The extraordinarily violent reaction protest which such music confronts in the present society … appears nonetheless to suggest that the dialectical function of this music can already be felt … negatively, as ‘destruction.’ “

The purpose of modern art, literature, and music must be to destroy the uplifting—therefore, bourgeois — potential of art, literature, and music, so that man, bereft of his connection to the divine, sees his only creative option to be political revolt. “To organize pessimism means nothing other than to expel the moral metaphor from politics and to discover in political action a sphere reserved one hundred percent for images.” Thus, Benjamin collaborated with Brecht to work these theories into practical form, and their joint effort culminated in the Verfremdungseffekt (“estrangement effect”), Brecht’s attempt to write his plays so as to make the audience leave the theatre demoralized and aimlessly angry.

The Adorno-Benjamin analysis represents almost the entire theoretical basis of all the politically correct aesthetic trends which now plague our universities. The Poststructuralism of Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, the Semiotics of Umberto Eco, the Deconstructionism of Paul DeMan, all openly cite Benjamin as the source of their work. The Italian terrorist Eco’s best-selling novel, The Name of the Rose, is little more than a paean to Benjamin; DeMan, the former Nazi collaborator in Belgium who became a prestigious Yale professor, began his career translating Benjamin; Barthes’ infamous 1968 statement that “[t]he author is dead,” is meant as an elaboration of Benjamin’s dictum on intention. Benjamin has actually been called the heir of Leibniz and of Wilhelm von Humboldt, the philologist collaborator of Schiller whose educational reforms engendered the tremendous development of Germany in the nineteenth century. Even as recently as September 1991, the Washington Post referred to Benjamin as “the finest German literary theorist of the century (and many would have left off that qualifying German).”

Readers have undoubtedly heard one or another horror story about how an African-American Studies Department has procured a ban on Othello, because it is “racist,” or how a radical feminist professor lectured a Modern Language Association meeting on the witches as the “true heroines” of Macbeth. These atrocities occur because the perpetrators are able to plausibly demonstrate, in the tradition of Benjamin and Adorno, that Shakespeare’s intent is irrelevant; what is important, is the racist or phallocentric “subtext” of which Shakespeare was unconscious when he wrote.

When the local Women’s Studies or Third World Studies Department organizes students to abandon classics in favor of modern Black and feminist authors, the reasons given are pure Benjamin. It is not that these modern writers are better, but they are somehow more truthful because their alienated prose reflects the modern social problems of which the older authors were ignorant! Students are being taught that language itself is, as Benjamin said, merely a conglomeration of false “names” foisted upon society by its oppressors, and are warned against “logocentrism,” the bourgeois over-reliance on words.

If these campus antics appear “retarded” (in the words of Adorno), that is because they are designed to be. The Frankfurt School’s most important breakthrough consists in the realization that their monstrous theories could become dominant in the culture, as a result of the changes in society brought about by what Benjamin called “the age of mechanical reproduction of art.”

“Entertainment” Replaces Art

Before the twentieth century, the distinction between art and “entertainment” was much more pronounced. One could be entertained by art, certainly, but the experience was active, not passive. On the first level, one had to make a conscious choice to go to a concert, to view a certain art exhibit, to buy a book or piece of sheet music. It was unlikely that any more than an infinitesimal fraction of the population would have the opportunity to see King Lear or hear Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony more than once or twice in a lifetime. Art demanded that one bring one’s full powers of concentration and knowledge of the subject to bear on each experience, or else the experience were considered wasted. These were the days when memorization of poetry and whole plays, and the gathering of friends and family for a “parlor concert,” were the norm, even in rural households. These were also the days before “music appreciation”; when one studied music, as many did, they learned to play it, not appreciate it.

However, the new technologies of radio, film, and recorded music represented, to use the appropriate Marxist buzz-word, (see box) a dialectical potential. On the one hand, these technologies held out the possibility of bringing the greatest works of art to millions of people who would otherwise not have access to them. On the other, the fact that the experience was infinitely reproducible could tend to disengage the audience’s mind, making the experience less sacred, thus increasing alienation. Adorno called this process, “demythologizing.” This new passivity, Adorno hypothesized in a crucial article published in 1938, could fracture a musical composition into the “entertaining” parts which would be “fetishized” in the memory of the listener, and the difficult parts, which would be forgotten.

Adorno continues,

“The counterpart to the fetishism is a regression of listening. This does not mean a relapse of the individual listener into an earlier phase of his own development, nor a decline in the collective general level, since the millions who are reached musically for the first time by today’s mass communications cannot be compared with the audiences of the past. Rather, it is the contemporary listening which has regressed, arrested at the infantile stage. Not only do the listening subjects lose, along with the freedom of choice and responsibility, the capacity for the conscious perception of music …. [t]hey fluctuate between comprehensive forgetting and sudden dives into recognition. They listen atomistically and dissociate what they hear, but precisely in this dissociation they develop certain capacities which accord less with the traditional concepts of aesthetics than with those of football or motoring. They are not childlike … but they are childish; their primitivism is not that of the undeveloped, but that of the forcibly retarded. “

This conceptual retardation and preconditioning caused by listening, suggested that programming could determine preference. The very act of putting, say, a Benny Goodman number next to a Mozart sonata on the radio, would tend to amalgamate both into entertaining “music-on-the-radio” in the mind of the listener. This meant that even new and unpalatable ideas could become popular by “re-naming” them through the universal homogenizer of the culture industry. As Benjamin puts it,

“Mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art. The reactionary attitude toward a Picasso painting changes into a progressive reaction toward a Chaplin movie. The progressive reaction is characterized by the direct, intimate fusion of visual and emotional enjoyment with the orientation of the expert…. With regard to the screen, the critical and receptive attitudes of the public coincide. The decisive reason for this is that the individual reactions are predetermined by the mass audience response they are about to produce, and this is nowhere more pronounced than in the film.”

At the same time, the magic power of the media could be used to re-define previous ideas. “Shakespeare, Rembrandt, Beethoven will all make films,” concluded Benjamin, quoting the French film pioneer Abel Gance, “… all legends, all mythologies, all myths, all founders of religions, and the very religions themselves … await their exposed resurrection.”

Critical Theory

Hence, the task of the Frankfurt School was sociological analysis and deconstruction of the ruling-class narrative as an alternative path to realizing the Marxist revolution.

We are told “free sex” is “progressive and modern.” In fact, the Sabbatean sect has indulged in wife sharing, sex orgies, adultery and incest for more than 350 years. They also promoted interracial sex. Many of the intellectuals that were at the Frankfurt School were openly Sabbatean-Frankist.

Scholem told his friend Walter Benjamin of his attraction to “the positive and noble force of destruction,” and declared that “destruction is a form of redemption.”

The philosophical tradition of the Frankfurt School is associated with the philosopher Max Horkheimer, who became the director in 1930, and recruited intellectuals such as Theodor W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse.

In addition to Hegel, Marx, and Weber, Freud became one of the foundation stones on which the Frankfurt School’s interdisciplinary program for a critical theory of society was constructed.

The purpose of critical theory is to analyze the true significance of the ruling understandings (the dominant ideology) generated in bourgeois society, by showing that the dominant ideology misrepresents how human relations occur in the real world, to legitimate the domination of people by capitalism.

Through Freud’s influence, the “incest taboo” would become an issue of fundamental concern to the Frankfurt School. Freud’s theories were excessively concerned with sex and even incest, which is reflected in Sabbateanism.

The Radio Project

Artistic depiction of HG Wells’ War of the Worlds

Here, then, were some potent theories of social control. The great possibilities of this Frankfurt School media work were probably the major contributing factor in the support given the I.S.R. by the bastions of the Establishment, after the Institute transferred its operations to America in 1934.

In 1937, the Rockefeller Foundation began funding research into the social effects of new forms of mass media, particularly radio. Before World War I, radio had been a hobbyist’s toy, with only 125,000 receiving sets in the entire U.S.; twenty years later, it had become the primary mode of entertainment in the country; out of 32 million American families in 1937, 27.5 million had radios — a larger percentage than had telephones, automobiles, plumbing, or electricity! Yet, almost no systematic research had been done up to this point. The Rockefeller Foundation enlisted several universities, and headquartered this network at the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Named the Office of Radio Research, it was popularly known as “the Radio Project.”

The director of the Project was Paul Lazersfeld, the foster son of Austrian Marxist economist Rudolph Hilferding, and a long-time collaborator of the I.S.R. from the early 1930’s. Under Lazersfeld was Frank Stanton, a recent Ph.D. in industrial psychology from Ohio State, who had just been made research director of Columbia Broadcasting System—a grand title but a lowly position. After World War II, Stanton became president of the CBS News Division, and ultimately president of CBS at the height of the TV network’s power; he also became Chairman of the Board of the RAND Corporation, and a member of President Lyndon Johnson’s “kitchen cabinet.” Among the Project’s researchers were Herta Herzog, who married Lazersfeld and became the first director of research for the Voice of America; and Hazel Gaudet, who became one of the nation’s leading political pollsters. Theodor Adorno was named chief of the Project’s music section.

Despite the official gloss, the activities of the Radio Project make it clear that its purpose was to test empirically the Adorno-Benjamin thesis that the net effect of the mass media could be to atomize and increase lability—what people would later call “brainwashing.”

Soap Operas and the Invasion from Mars

The first studies were promising. Herta Herzog produced “On Borrowed Experiences,” the first comprehensive research on soap operas. The “serial radio drama” format was first used in 1929, on the inspiration of the old, cliff-hanger “Perils of Pauline” film serial. Because these little radio plays were highly melodramatic, they became popularly identified with Italian grand opera; because they were often sponsored by soap manufacturers, they ended up with the generic name, “soap opera.”

Until Herzog’s work, it was thought that the immense popularity of this format was largely with women of the lowest socioeconomic status who, in the restricted circumstances of their lives, needed a helpful escape to exotic places and romantic situations. A typical article from that period by two University of Chicago psychologists, “The Radio Day-Time Serial: Symbol Analysis” published in the Genetic Psychology Monographs, solemnly emphasized the positive, claiming that the soaps “function very much like the folk tale, expressing the hopes and fears of its female audience, and on the whole contribute to the integration of their lives into the world in which they live.”

Herzog found that there was, in fact, no correlation to socioeconomic status. What is more, there was surprisingly little correlation to content. The key factor — as Adorno and Benjamin’s theories suggested it would be — was the form itself of the serial; women were being effectively addicted to the format, not so much to be entertained or to escape, but to “find out what happens next week.” In fact, Herzog found, you could almost double the listenership of a radio play by dividing it into segments.

Modern readers will immediately recognize that this was not a lesson lost on the entertainment industry. Nowadays, the serial format has spread to children’s programming and high-budget prime time shows. The most widely watched shows in the history of television, remain the “Who Killed JR?” installment of Dallas, and the final episode of M*A*S*H, both of which were premised on a “what happens next?” format. Even feature films, like the Star Wars and Back to the Future trilogies, are now produced as serials, in order to lock in a viewership for the later installments. The humble daytime soap also retains its addictive qualities in the current age: 70% of all American women over eighteen now watch at least two of these shows each day, and there is a fast-growing viewership among men and college students of both sexes.

The Radio Project’s next major study was an investigation into the effects of Orson Welles’ Halloween 1938 radioplay based on H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds. Six million people heard the broadcast realistically describing a Martian invasion force landing in rural New Jersey. Despite repeated and clear statements that the show was fictional, approximately 25% of the listeners thought it was real, some panicking outright. The Radio Project researchers found that a majority of the people who panicked did not think that men from Mars had invaded; they actually thought that the Germans had invaded.

It happened this way. The listeners had been psychologically pre-conditioned by radio reports from the Munich crisis earlier that year. During that crisis, CBS’s man in Europe, Edward R. Murrow, hit upon the idea of breaking into regular programming to present short news bulletins. For the first time in broadcasting, news was presented not in longer analytical pieces, but in short clips—what we now call “audio bites.” At the height of the crisis, these flashes got so numerous, that, in the words of Murrow’s producer Fred Friendly, “news bulletins were interrupting news bulletins.” As the listeners thought that the world was moving to the brink of war, CBS ratings rose dramatically.

When Welles did his fictional broadcast later, after the crisis had receded, he used this news bulletin technique to give things verisimilitude: he started the broadcast by faking a standard dance-music program, which kept getting interrupted by increasingly terrifying “on the scene reports” from New Jersey. Listeners who panicked, reacted not to content, but to format; they heard “We interrupt this program for an emergency bulletin,” and “invasion,” and immediately concluded that Hitler had invaded. The soap opera technique, transposed to the news, had worked on a vast and unexpected scale.

Little Annie and the “Wagnerian Dream” of TV

In 1939, one of the numbers of the quarterly Journal of Applied Psychology was handed over to Adorno and the Radio Project to publish some of their findings. Their conclusion was that Americans had, over the last twenty years, become “radio-minded,” and that their listening had become so fragmented that repetition of format was the key to popularity. The play list determined the “hits”—a truth well known to organized crime, both then and now—and repetition could make any form of music or any performer, even a classical music performer, a “star.” As long as a familiar form or context was retained, almost any content would become acceptable. “Not only are hit songs, stars, and soap operas cyclically recurrent and rigidly invariable types,” said Adorno, summarizing this material a few years later, “but the specific content of the entertainment itself is derived from them and only appears to change. The details are interchangeable.”

The crowning achievement of the Radio Project was “Little Annie,” officially titled the Stanton-Lazersfeld Program Analyzer. Radio Project research had shown that all previous methods of preview polling were ineffectual. Up to that point, a preview audience listened to a show or watched a film, and then was asked general questions: did you like the show? what did you think of so-and-so’s performance? The Radio Project realized that this method did not take into account the test audience’s atomized perception of the subject, and demanded that they make a rational analysis of what was intended to be an irrational experience. So, the Project created a device in which each test audience member was supplied with a type of rheostat on which he could register the intensity of his likes or dislikes on a moment-to-moment basis. By comparing the individual graphs produced by the device, the operators could determine, not if the audience liked the whole show — which was irrelevant—but, which situations or characters produced a positive, if momentary, feeling state.

Little Annie transformed radio, film, and ultimately television programming. CBS still maintains program analyzer facilities in Hollywood and New York; it is said that results correlate 85% to ratings. Other networks and film studios have similar operations. This kind of analysis is responsible for the uncanny feeling you get when, seeing a new film or TV show, you think you have seen it all before. You have, many times. If a program analyzer indicates that, for instance, audiences were particularly titilated by a short scene in a World War II drama showing a certain type of actor kissing a certain type of actress, then that scene format will be worked into dozens of screenplays—transposed to the Middle Ages, to outer space, etc., etc.

The Radio Project also realized that television had the potential to intensify all of the effects that they had studied. TV technology had been around for some years, and had been exhibited at the 1936 World’s Fair in New York, but the only person to attempt serious utilization of the medium had been Adolf Hitler. The Nazis broadcast events from the 1936 Olympic Games “live” to communal viewing rooms around Germany; they were trying to expand on their great success in using radio to Nazify all aspects of German culture. Further plans for German TV development were sidetracked by war preparations.

Adorno understood this potential perfectly, writing in 1944:

:Television aims at the synthesis of radio and film, and is held up only because the interested parties have not yet reached agreement, but its consequences will be quite enormous and promise to intensify the impoverishment of aesthetic matter so drastically, that by tomorrow the thinly veiled identity of all industrial culture products can come triumphantly out in the open, derisively fulfilling the Wagnerian dream of the Gesamtkunstwerk—the fusion of all the arts in one work.”

The obvious point is this: the profoundly irrational forms of modern entertainment—the stupid and eroticized content of most TV and films, the fact that your local Classical music radio station programs Stravinsky next to Mozart—don’t have to be that way. They were designed to be that way. The design was so successful, that today, no one even questions the reasons or the origins.

Creating “Public Opinion” & The “Authoritarian Personality”

The efforts of the Radio Project conspirators to manipulate the population, spawned the modern pseudoscience of public opinion polling, in order to gain greater control over the methods they were developing.

Today, public opinion polls, like the television news, have been completely integrated into our society. A “scientific survey” of what people are said to think about an issue can be produced in less than twenty-four hours. Some campaigns for high political office are completely shaped by polls; in fact, many politicians try to create issues which are themselves meaningless, but which they know will look good in the polls, purely for the purpose of enhancing their image as “popular.” Important policy decisions are made, even before the actual vote of the citizenry or the legislature, by poll results. Newspapers will occasionally write pious editorials calling on people to think for themselves, even as the newspaper’s business agent sends a check to the local polling organization.

The idea of “public opinion” is not new, of course. Plato spoke against it in his Republic over two millenia ago; Alexis de Tocqueville wrote at length of its influence over America in the early nineteenth century. But, nobody thought to measure public opinion before the twentieth century, and nobody before the 1930’s thought to use those measurements for decision-making.

It is useful to pause and reflect on the whole concept. The belief that public opinion can be a determinant of truth is philosophically insane. It precludes the idea of the rational individual mind. Every individual mind contains the divine spark of reason, and is thus capable of scientific discovery, and understanding the discoveries of others. The individual mind is one of the few things that cannot, therefore, be “averaged.” Consider: at the moment of creative discovery, it is possible, if not probable, that the scientist making the discovery is the only person to hold that opinion about nature, whereas everyone else has a different opinion, or no opinion. One can only imagine what a “scientifically-conducted survey” on Kepler’s model of the solar system would have been, shortly after he published the Harmony of the World: 2% for, 48% against, 50% no opinion.

These psychoanalytic survey techniques became standard, not only for the Frankfurt School, but also throughout American social science departments, particularly after the I.S.R. arrived in the United States. The methodology was the basis of the research piece for which the Frankfurt School is most well known, the “authoritarian personality” project.

In 1942, I.S.R. director Max Horkheimer made contact with the American Jewish Committee, which asked him to set up a Department of Scientific Research within its organization. The American Jewish Committee also provided a large grant to study anti-Semitism in the American population. “Our aim,” wrote Horkheimer in the introduction to the study, “is not merely to describe prejudice, but to explain it in order to help in its eradication…. Eradication means reeducation scientifically planned on the basis of understanding scientifically arrived at.”

Ultimately, five volumes were produced for this study over the course of the late 1940’s; the most important was the last, The Authoritarian Personality, by Adorno, with the help of three Berkeley, California social psychologists.

In the 1930’s Erich Fromm had devised a questionnaire to be used to analyze German workers pychoanalytically as “authoritarian,” “revolutionary” or “ambivalent.” The heart of Adorno’s study was, once again, Fromm’s psychoanalytic scale, but with the positive end changed from a “revolutionary personality,” to a “democratic personality,” in order to make things more palatable for a postwar audience.

Nine personality traits were tested and measured, including:

  • conventionalism—rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class values
  • authoritarian aggression—the tendency to be on the look-out for, to condemn, reject and punish, people who violate conventional values
  • projectivity—the disposition to believethat wild and dangerous things go on in the world
  • sex—exaggerated concern with sexual goings-on.

From these measurements were constructed several scales: the E Scale (ethnocentrism), the PEC Scale (poltical and economic conservatism), the A-S Scale (anti-Semitism), and the F Scale (fascism). Using Rensis Lickerts’s methodology of weighting results, the authors were able to tease together an empirical definition of what Adorno called “a new anthropological type,” the authoritarian personality. The legerdemain here, as in all psychoanalytic survey work, is the assumption of a Weberian “type.” Once the type has been statistically determined, all behavior can be explained; if an anti-Semitic personality does not act in an anti-Semitic way, then he or she has an ulterior motive for the act, or is being discontinuous. The idea that a human mind is capable of transformation, is ignored.

The results of this very study can be interpreted in diametrically different ways. One could say that the study proved that the population of the U.S. was generally conservative, did not want to abandon a capitalist economy, believed in a strong family and that sexual promiscuity should be punished, thought that the postwar world was a dangerous place, and was still suspicious of Jews (and Blacks, Roman Catholics, Orientals, etc. — unfortunately true, but correctable in a social context of economic growth and cultural optimism). On the other hand, one could take the same results and prove that anti-Jewish pogroms and Nuremberg rallies were simmering just under the surface, waiting for a new Hitler to ignite them. Which of the two interpretations you accept is a political, not a scientific, decision. Horkheimer and Adorno firmly believed that all religions, Judaism included, were “the opiate of the masses.” Their goal was not the protection of Jews from prejudice, but the creation of a definition of authoritarianism and anti-Semitism which could be exploited to force the “scientifically planned reeducation” of Americans and Europeans away from the principles of Western civilization, which the Frankfurt School despised. In their theoretical writings of this period, Horkheimer and Adorno pushed the thesis to its most paranoid: just as capitalism was inherently fascistic, the philosophy of Christianity itself is the source of anti-Semitism. As Horkheimer and Adorno jointly wrote in their 1947 “Elements of Anti-Semitism”:

“Christ, the spirit become flesh, is the deified sorcerer. Man’s self-reflection in the absolute, the humanization of God by Christ, is the proton pseudos [original falsehood]. Progress beyond Judaism is coupled with the assumption that the man Jesus has become God. The reflective aspect of Christianity, the intellectualization of magic, is the root of evil.”

At the same time, Horkheimer could write in a more-popularized article titled “Anti-Semitism: A Social Disease,” that “at present, the only country where there does not seem to be any kind of anti-Semitism is Russia”

This self-serving attempt to maximize paranoia was further aided by Hannah Arendt, who popularized the authoritarian personality research in her widely-read Origins of Totalitarianism. Arendt also added the famous rhetorical flourish about the “banality of evil” in her later Eichmann in Jerusalem: even a simple, shopkeeper-type like Eichmann can turn into a Nazi beast under the right psychological circumstances—every Gentile is suspect, psychoanalytically.

It is Arendt’s extreme version of the authoritarian personality thesis which is the operant philosophy of today’s Cult Awareness Network (CAN), a group which works with the U.S. Justice Department and the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith, among others. Using standard Frankfurt School method, CAN identifies political and religious groups which are its political enemies, then re-labels them as a “cult,” in order to justify operations against them. 

The Public Opinion Explosion

Despite its unprovable central thesis of “psychoanalytic types,” the interpretive survey methodology of the Frankfurt School became dominant in the social sciences, and essentially remains so today. In fact, the adoption of these new, supposedly scientific techniques in the 1930’s brought about an explosion in public-opinion survey use, much of it funded by Madison Avenue. The major pollsters of the 1980s-1990s—A.C. Neilsen, George Gallup, Elmo Roper—started in the mid-1930’s, and began using the I.S.R. methods, especially given the success of the Stanton-Lazersfeld Program Analyzer. By 1936, polling activity had become sufficiently widespread to justify a trade association, the American Academy of Public Opinion Research at Princeton, headed by Lazersfeld; at the same time, the University of Chicago created the National Opinion Research Center. In 1940, the Office of Radio Research was turned into the Bureau of Applied Social Research, a division of Columbia University, with the indefatigable Lazersfeld as director.

After World War II, Lazersfeld especially pioneered the use of surveys to psychoanalyze American voting behavior, and by the 1952 Presidential election, Madison Avenue advertising agencies were firmly in control of Dwight Eisenhower’s campaign, utilizing Lazersfeld’s work. Nineteen fifty-two was also the first election under the influence of television, which, as Adorno had predicted eight years earlier, had grown to incredible influence in a very short time. Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborne — the fabled “BBD&O” ad agency—designed Ike’s campaign appearances entirely for the TV cameras, and as carefully as Hitler’s Nuremberg rallies; one-minute “spot” advertisements were pioneered to cater to the survey-determined needs of the voters.

This snowball has not stopped rolling since. The entire development of television and advertising in the 1950’s and 1960’s was pioneered by men and women who were trained in the Frankfurt School’s techniques of mass alienation. Frank Stanton went directly from the Radio Project to become the single most-important leader of modern television. Stanton’s chief rival in the formative period of TV was NBC’s Sylvester “Pat” Weaver; after a Ph.D. in “listening behavior,” Weaver worked with the Program Analyzer in the late 1930’s, before becoming a Young & Rubicam vice-president, then NBC’s director of programming, and ultimately the network’s president. Stanton and Weaver’s stories are typical.

Today, the men and women who run the networks, the ad agencies, and the polling organizations, even if they have never heard of Theodor Adorno, firmly believe in Adorno’s theory that the media can, and should, turn all they touch into “football.” Coverage of the 1991 Gulf War should make that clear.

The technique of mass media and advertising developed by the Frankfurt School now effectively controls American political campaigning. Campaigns are no longer based on political programs, but actually on alienation. Petty gripes and irrational fears are identified by psychoanalytic survey, to be transmogrified into “issues” to be catered to; the “Willy Horton” ads of the 1988 Presidential campaign, and the “flag-burning amendment,” are but two recent examples. Issues that will determine the future of our civilization, are scrupulously reduced to photo opportunities and audio bites—like Ed Murrow’s original 1930’s radio reports—where the dramatic effect is maximized, and the idea content is zero.

Espionage & the Office of Strategic Services

Part of the influence of the authoritarian personality hoax in our own day also derives from the fact that, incredibly, the Frankfurt School and its theories were officially accepted by the U.S. government during World War II, and these Cominternists were responsible for determining who were America’s wartime, and postwar, enemies.

In 1942, the Office of Strategic Services, America’s hastily-constructed espionage and covert operations unit, asked former Harvard president James Baxter to form a Research and Analysis (R&A) Branch under the group’s Intelligence Division. By 1944, the R&A Branch had collected such a large and prestigious group of emigré scholars that H. Stuart Hughes, then a young Ph.D., said that working for it was “a second graduate education” at government expense. The Central European Section was headed by historian Carl Schorske; under him, in the all-important Germany/Austria Section, was Franz Neumann, as section chief, with Herbert Marcuse, Paul Baran, and Otto Kirchheimer, all I.S.R. veterans. Leo Lowenthal headed the German-language section of the Office of War Information; Sophie Marcuse, Marcuse’s wife, worked at the Office of Naval Intelligence. Also at the R&A Branch were: Siegfried Kracauer, Adorno’s old Kant instructor, now a film theorist; Norman O. Brown, who would become famous in the 1960’s by combining Marcuse’s hedonism theory with Wilhelm Reich’s orgone therapy to popularize “polymorphous perversity”; Barrington Moore, Jr., later a philosophy professor who would co-author a book with Marcuse; Gregory Bateson, the husband of anthropologist Margaret Mead (who wrote for the Frankfurt School’s journal), and Arthur Schlesinger, the historian who joined the Kennedy Administration.

Marcuse’s first assignment was to head a team to identify both those who would be tried as war criminals after the war, and also those who were potential leaders of postwar Germany. In 1944, Marcuse, Neumann, and Kirchheimer wrote the Denazification Guide, which was later issued to officers of the U.S. Armed Forces occupying Germany, to help them identify and suppress pro-Nazi behaviors. After the armistice, the R&A Branch sent representatives to work as intelligence liaisons with the various occupying powers; Marcuse was assigned the U.S. Zone, Kirchheimer the French, and Barrington Moore the Soviet.

In the summer of 1945, Neumann left to become chief of research for the Nuremburg Tribunal. Marcuse remained in and around U.S. intelligence into the early 1950’s, rising to the chief of the Central European Branch of the State Department’s Office of Intelligence Research, an office formally charged with “planning and implementing a program of positive-intelligence research … to meet the intelligence requirements of the Central Intelligence Agency and other authorized agencies.” During his tenure as a U.S. government official, Marcuse supported the division of Germany into East and West, noting that this would prevent an alliance between the newly liberated left-wing parties and the old, conservative industrial and business layers. In 1949, he produced a 532-page report, “The Potentials of World Communism” (declassified only in 1978), which suggested that the Marshall Plan economic stabilization of Europe would limit the recruitment potential of Western Europe’s Communist Parties to acceptable levels, causing a period of hostile co-existence with the Soviet Union, marked by confrontation only in faraway places like Latin America and Indochina—in all, a surprisingly accurate forecast. Marcuse left the State Department with a Rockefeller Foundation grant to work with the various Soviet Studies departments which were set up at many of America’s top universities after the war, largely by R&A Branch veterans.

At the same time, Max Horkheimer was doing even greater damage. As part of the denazification of Germany suggested by the R&A Branch, U.S. High Commissioner for Germany John J. McCloy, using personal discretionary funds, brought Horkheimer back to Germany to reform the German university system. In fact, McCloy asked President Truman and Congress to pass a bill granting Horkheimer, who had become a naturalized American, dual citizenship; thus, for a brief period, Horkheimer was the only person in the world to hold both German and U.S. citizenship. In Germany, Horkheimer began the spadework for the full-blown revival of the Frankfurt School in that nation in the late 1950’s, including the training of a whole new generation of anti-Western civilization scholars like Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jürgen Habermas, who would have such destructive influence in 1960’s Germany. In a period of American history when some individuals were being hounded into unemployment and suicide for the faintest aroma of leftism, Frankfurt School veterans—all with superb Comintern credentials — led what can only be called charmed lives. America had, to an incredible extent, handed the determination of who were the nation’s enemies, over to the nation’s own worst enemies.

The Aristotelian Eros: Marcuse and the CIA’s Drug Counterculture

In 1989, Hans-Georg Gadamer, a protégé of Martin Heidegger and the last of the original Frankfurt School generation, was asked to provide an appreciation of his own work for the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. He wrote,

“One has to conceive of Aristotle’s ethics as a true fulfillment of the Socratic challenge, which Plato had placed at the center of his dialogues on the Socratic question of the good…. Plato described the idea of the good … as the ultimate and highest idea, which is supposedly the highest principle of being for the universe, the state, and the human soul. Against this Aristotle opposed a decisive critique, under the famous formula, “Plato is my friend, but the truth is my friend even more.” He denied that one could consider the idea of the good as a universal principle of being, which is supposed to hold in the same way for theoretical knowledge as for practical knowledge and human activity.”

This statement not only succinctly states the underlying philosophy of the Frankfurt School, it also suggests an inflection point around which we can order much of the philosophical combat of the last two millenia. In the simplest terms, the Aristotelian correction of Plato sunders physics from metaphysics, relegating the Good to a mere object of speculation about which “our knowledge remains only a hypothesis,” in the words of Wilhelm Dilthey, the Frankfurt School’s favorite philosopher. Our knowledge of the “real world,” as Dilthey, Nietzsche, and other precursors of the Frankfurt School were wont to emphasize, becomes erotic, in the broadest sense of that term, as object fixation.

The universe becomes a collection of things which each operate on the basis of their own natures (that is, genetically), and through interaction between themselves (that is, mechanistically). Science becomes the deduction of the appropriate categories of these natures and interactions. Since the human mind is merely a sensorium, waiting for the Newtonian apple to jar it into deduction, humanity’s relationship to the world (and vice versa) becomes an erotic attachment to objects. The comprehension of the universal—the mind’s seeking to be the living image of the living God—is therefore illusory. That universal either does not exist, or it exists incomprehensibly as a deus ex machina; that is, the Divine exists as a superaddition to the physical universe — God is really Zeus, flinging thunderbolts into the world from some outside location. (Or, perhaps more appropriately: God is really Cupid, letting loose golden arrows to make objects attract, and leaden arrows to make objects repel.) The key to the entire Frankfurt School program, from originator Lukacs on, is the “liberation” of Aristotelian eros, to make individual feeling states psychologically primary. When the I.S.R. leaders arrived in the United States in the mid-1930’s, they exulted that here was a place which had no adequate philosophical defenses against their brand of Kulturpessimismus [cultural pessimism].

However, although the Frankfurt School made major inroads in American intellectual life before World War II, that influence was largely confined to academia and to radio; and radio, although important, did not yet have the overwhelming influence on social life that it would acquire during the war. Furthermore, America’s mobilization for the war, and the victory against fascism, sidetracked the Frankfurt School schedule; America in 1945 was almost sublimely optimistic, with a population firmly convinced that a mobilized republic, backed by science and technology, could do just about anything.

The fifteen years after the war, however, saw the domination of family life by the radio and television shaped by the Frankfurt School, in a period of political erosion in which the great positive potential of America degenerated to a purely negative posture against the real and, oftentimes manipulated, threat of the Soviet Union. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of the young generation—the so-called baby boomers—were entering college and being exposed to the Frankfurt School’s poison, either directly or indirectly. It is illustrative, that by 1960, sociology had become the most popular course of study in American universities. Indeed, when one looks at the first stirrings of the student rebellion at the beginning of the 1960’s, like the speeches of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement or the Port Huron Statement which founded the Students for a Democratic Society, one is struck with how devoid of actual content these discussions were. There is much anxiety about being made to conform to the system—”I am a human being; do not fold, spindle, or mutilate” went an early Berkeley slogan—but it is clear that the “problems” cited derive much more from required sociology textbooks, than from the real needs of the society.

The simmering unrest on campus in 1960 might well too have passed or had a positive outcome, were it not for the traumatic decapitation of the nation through the Kennedy assassination, plus the simultaneous introduction of widespread drug use. Drugs had always been an “analytical tool” of the nineteenth century Romantics, like the French Symbolists, and were popular among the European and American Bohemian fringe well into the post-World War II period. But, in the second half of the 1950’s, the CIA and allied intelligence services began extensive experimentation with the hallucinogen LSD to investigate its potential for social control.

It has now been documented that millions of doses of the chemical were produced and disseminated under the aegis of the CIA’s Operation MK-Ultra. LSD became the drug of choice within the agency itself, and was passed out freely to friends of the family, including a substantial number of OSS veterans. For instance, it was OSS Research and Analysis Branch veteran Gregory Bateson who “turned on” the Beat poet Allen Ginsberg to a U.S. Navy LSD experiment in Palo Alto, California. Not only Ginsberg, but novelist Ken Kesey and the original members of the Grateful Dead rock group opened the doors of perception courtesy of the Navy. The guru of the “psychedelic revolution,” Timothy Leary, first heard about hallucinogens in 1957 from Life magazine (whose publisher, Henry Luce, was often given government acid, like many other opinion shapers), and began his career as a CIA contract employee; at a 1977 “reunion” of acid pioneers, Leary openly admitted, “everything I am, I owe to the foresight of the CIA.” Hallucinogens have the singular effect of making the victim asocial, totally self-centered, and concerned with objects.

Even the most banal objects take on the “aura” which Benjamin had talked about, and become timeless and delusionary profound. In other words, hallucinogens instantaneously achieve a state of mind identical to that prescribed by the Frankfurt School theories. And, the popularization of these chemicals created a vast psychological lability for bringing those theories into practice. Thus, the situation at the beginning of the 1960’s represented a brilliant re-entry point for the Frankfurt School, and it was fully exploited. One of the crowning ironies of the “Now Generation” of 1964 on, is that, for all its protestations of utter modernity, none of its ideas or artifacts was less than thirty years old. The political theory came completely from the Frankfurt School; Lucien Goldmann, a French radical who was a visiting professor at Columbia in 1968, was absolutely correct when he said of Herbert Marcuse in 1969 that “the student movements … found in his works and ultimately in his works alone the theoretical formulation of their problems and aspirations [emphasis in original].” The long hair and sandals, the free love communes, the macrobiotic food, the liberated lifestyles, had been designed at the turn of the century, and thoroughly field-tested by various, Frankfurt School-connected New Age social experiments like the Ascona commune before 1920. (See box.) Even Tom Hayden’s defiant “Never trust anyone over thirty,” was merely a less-urbane version of Rupert Brooke’s 1905, “Nobody over thirty is worth talking to.” The social planners who shaped the 1960’s simply relied on already-available materials.

Eros and Civilization

The founding document of the 1960’s counterculture, and that which brought the Frankfurt School’s “revolutionary messianism” of the 1920’s into the 1960’s, was Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization, originally published in 1955 and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. The document masterfully sums up the Frankfurt School ideology of Kulturpessimismus in the concept of “dimensionality.” In one of the most bizarre perversions of philosophy, Marcuse claims to derive this concept from Friedrich Schiller. Schiller, whom Marcuse purposefully misidentifies as the heir of Immanuel Kant, discerned two dimensions in humanity: a sensuous instinct and an impulse toward form.

Schiller advocated the harmonization of these two instincts in man in the form of a creative play instinct. For Marcuse, on the other hand, the only hope to escape the one-dimensionality of modern industrial society was to liberate the erotic side of man, the sensuous instinct, in rebellion against “technological rationality.” As Marcuse would say later (1964) in his One-Dimensional Man, “A comfortable, smooth, reasonable, democratic unfreedom prevails in advanced industrial civilization, a token of technical progress.” This erotic liberation he misidentifies with Schiller’s “play instinct,” which, rather than being erotic, is an expression of charity, the higher concept of love associated with true creativity.

Marcuse’s contrary theory of erotic liberation is something implicit in Sigmund Freud, but not explicitly emphasized, except for some Freudian renegades like Wilhelm Reich and, to a certain extent, Carl Jung. Every aspect of culture in the West, including reason itself, says Marcuse, acts to repress this: “The totalitarian universe of technological rationality is the latest transmutation of the idea of reason.” Or: “Auschwitz continues to haunt, not the memory but the accomplishments of man—the space flights, the rockets and missiles, the pretty electronics plants….”

This erotic liberation should take the form of the “Great Refusal,” a total rejection of the “capitalist” monster and all his works, including “technological” reason, and “ritual-authoritarian language.” As part of the Great Refusal, mankind should develop an “aesthetic ethos,” turning life into an aesthetic ritual, a “life-style” (a nonsense phrase which came into the language in the 1960’s under Marcuse’s influence). With Marcuse representing the point of the wedge, the 1960’s were filled with obtuse intellectual justifications of contentless adolescent sexual rebellion. Eros and Civilization was reissued as an inexpensive paperback in 1961, and ran through several editions; in the preface to the 1966 edition, Marcuse added that the new slogan, “Make Love, Not War,” was exactly what he was talking about: “The fight for eros is a political fight [emphasis in original].” In 1969, he noted that even the New Left’s obsessive use of obscenities in its manifestos was part of the Great Refusal, calling it “a systematic linguistic rebellion, which smashes the ideological context in which the words are employed and defined.” Marcuse was aided by psychoanalyst Norman O. Brown, his OSS protege, who contributed Life Against Death in 1959, and Love’s Body in 1966—calling for man to shed his reasonable, “armored” ego, and replace it with a “Dionysian body ego,” that would embrace the instinctual reality of polymorphous perversity, and bring man back into “union with nature.” The books of Reich, who had claimed that Nazism was caused by monogamy, were re-issued. Reich had died in an American prison, jailed for taking money on the claim that cancer could be cured by rechanneling “orgone energy.”

Primary education became dominated by Reich’s leading follower, A.S. Neill, a Theosophical cult member of the 1930’s and militant atheist, whose educational theories demanded that students be taught to rebel against teachers who are, by nature, authoritarian. Neill’s book Summerhill sold 24,000 copies in 1960, rising to 100,000 in 1968, and 2 million in 1970; by 1970, it was required reading in 600 university courses, making it one of the most influential education texts of the period, and still a benchmark for recent writers on the subject. Marcuse led the way for the complete revival of the rest of the Frankfurt School theorists, re-introducing the long-forgotten Lukacs to America. Marcuse himself became the lightning rod for attacks on the counterculture, and was regularly attacked by such sources as the Soviet daily Pravda, and then-California Governor Ronald Reagan.

The only critique of any merit at the time, however, was one by Pope Paul VI, who in 1969 named Marcuse (an extraordinary step, as the Vatican usually refrains from formal denunciations of living individuals), along with Freud, for their justification of “disgusting and unbridled expressions of eroticism”; and called Marcuse’s theory of liberation, “the theory which opens the way for license cloaked as liberty … an aberration of instinct.” The eroticism of the counterculture meant much more than free love and a violent attack on the nuclear family. It also meant the legitimization of philosophical eros. People were trained to see themselves as objects, determined by their “natures.” The importance of the individual as a person gifted with the divine spark of creativity, and capable of acting upon all human civilization, was replaced by the idea that the person is important because he or she is black, or a woman, or feels homosexual impulses. This explains the deformation of the civil rights movement into a “black power” movement, and the transformation of the legitimate issue of civil rights for women into feminism. Discussion of women’s civil rights was forced into being just another “liberation cult,” complete with bra-burning and other, sometimes openly Astarte-style, rituals; a review of Kate Millet’s Sexual Politics (1970) and Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch (1971), demonstrates their complete reliance on Marcuse, Fromm, Reich, and other Freudian extremists.

This popularization of life as an erotic, pessimistic ritual did not abate, but in fact deepened over the twenty years leading to today; it is the basis of the horror we see around us. The heirs of Marcuse and Adorno completely dominate the universities, teaching their own students to replace reason with “Politically Correct” ritual exercises. There are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language published today in the United States or Europe which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfort School.

The witchhunt on today’s campuses is merely the implementation of Marcuse’s concept of “repressive toleration”—”tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right”—enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School, now become the professors of women’s studies and Afro-American studies. The most erudite spokesman for Afro-American studies, for instance, Professor Cornell West of Princeton, publicly states that his theories are derived from Georg Lukacs.

At the same time, the ugliness so carefully nurtured by the Frankfurt School pessimists, has corrupted our highest cultural endeavors. One can hardly find a performance of a Mozart opera, which has not been utterly deformed by a director who, following Benjamin and the I.S.R., wants to “liberate the erotic subtext.” You cannot ask an orchestra to perform Schönberg and Beethoven on the same program, and maintain its integrity for the latter. And, when our highest culture becomes impotent, popular culture becomes openly bestial. One final image: American and European children daily watch films like Nightmare on Elm Street and Total Recall, or television shows comparable to them. A typical scene in one of these will have a figure emerge from a television set; the skin of his face will realistically peel away to reveal a hideously deformed man with razor-blade fingers, fingers which start growing to several feet in length, and—suddenly—the victim is slashed to bloody ribbons. This is not entertainment. This is the deeply paranoid hallucination of the LSD acid head. The worst of what happened in the 1960’s is now daily fare. Owing to the Frankfurt School and its co-conspirators, the West is on a “bad trip” from which it is not being allowed to come down.

The principles through which Western Christian civilization was built, are now no longer dominant in our society; they exist only as a kind of underground resistance movement. If that resistance is ultimately submerged, then the civilization will not survive—and, in our era of incurable pandemic disease and nuclear weapons, the collapse of Western civilization will very likely take the rest of the world with it to Hell.

The way out is to create a Renaissance. If that sounds grandiose, it is nonetheless what is needed. A renaissance means, to start again; to discard the evil, and inhuman, and just plain stupid, and to go back, hundreds or thousands of years, to the ideas which allow humanity to grow in freedom and goodness. Once we have identified those core beliefs, we can start to rebuild civilization.

Ultimately, a new Renaissance will rely on scientists, artists, and composers, but in the first moment, it depends on seemingly ordinary people who will defend the divine spark of reason in themselves, and tolerate no less in others. Given the successes of the Frankfurt School and its New Dark Age sponsors, these ordinary individuals, with their belief in reason and the difference between right and wrong, will be “unpopular.” But, no really good idea was ever popular, in the beginning.

Make Love, Not War


Anti-Vietnam protest in America – Marcuse coined the phrase, “Make Love, Not War”

Marcuse didn’t stop there. He emigrated to the United States in the 1930 to escape Hitler, and while here wrote an influential best seller in 1959, Eros and Civilization, which is seen as a founding document of the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. Marcuse was very clear why the revolution was important—to destroy the family. He wrote:

“The body in its entirety would become . . . a thing to be enjoyed—an instrument of pleasure. This change in the value and scope in libidinal relationships would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family.”

The New Age Paradigm Shift

The Frankfurt School’s original 1930’s survey work, including the “authoritarian personality,” was based on psychoanalytic categories developed by Erich Fromm. Fromm derived these categories from the theories of J.J. Bachofen, a collaborator of Nietzsche and Richard Wagner, who claimed that human civilization was originally “matriarchal.” This primoridial period of “gynocratic democracy” and dominance of the Magna Mater (Great Mother) cult, said Bachofen, was submerged by the development of rational, authoritarian “patriarchism,” including monotheistic religion. Later, Fromm utilized this theory to claim that support for the nuclear family was evidence of authoritarian tendencies.

In 1970, forty years after he first proclaimed the importance of Bachofen’s theory, the Frankfurt School’s Erich Fromm surveyed how far things had developed. He listed seven “social-psychological changes” which indicated the advance of matriarchism over patriarchism:

  •  “The women’s revolution;”
  •  “Children’s and adolescents’ revolution,” based on the work of Benjamin Spock and others, allowing children new, and more-adequate ways to express rebellion;
  •  The rise of the radical youth movement, which fully embraces Bachofen, in its emphasis on group sex, loose family structure, and unisex clothing and behaviors;
  •  The increasing use of Bachofen by professionals to correct Freud’s overly-sexual analysis of the mother-son relationship—this would make Freudianism less threatening and more palatable to the general population;
  •  “The vision of the consumer paradise…. In this vision, technique assumes the characteristics of the Great Mother, a technical instead of a natural one, who nurses her children and pacifies them with a never-ceasing lullaby (in the form of radio and television). In the process, man becomes emotionally an infant, feeling secure in the hope that mother’s breasts will always supply abundant milk, and that decisions need no longer be made by the individual.”

Moving Forward

The Frankfurt School devised the “authoritarian personality” profile as a weapon to be used against its political enemies. The fraud rests on the assumption that a person’s actions are not important; rather, the issue is the psychological attitude of the actor—as determined by social scientists like those of the Frankfurt School. The concept is diametrically opposed to the idea of natural law and to the republican legal principles upon which the U.S. was founded; it is, in fact, fascistic, and identical to the idea of “thought crime,” as described by George Orwell in his 1984, and to the theory of “volitional crime” developed by Nazi judge Roland Freisler in the early 1930’s.

When the Frankfurt School was in its openly pro-Bolshevik phase, its authoritarian personality work was designed to identify people who were not sufficiently revolutionary, so that these people could be “re-educated.” When the Frankfurt School expanded its research after World War II at the behest of the American Jewish Committee and the Rockefeller Foundation, its purpose was not to identify anti-Semitism; that was merely a cover story. Its goal was to measure adherence to the core beliefs of Western civilization, so that these beliefs could be characterized as “authoritarian,” and discredited.

For the Frankfurt School conspirators, the worst crime was the belief that each individual was gifted with sovereign reason, which could enable him to determine what is right and wrong for the whole society; thus, to tell people that you have a reasonable idea to which they should conform, is authoritarian, paternalistic extremism.

By these standards, the judges of Socrates and Jesus were correct in condemning these two individuals (as, for example, I.F. Stone asserts in one case in his “Trial of Socrates.”) It is the measure of our own cultural collapse, that this definition of authoritarianism is acceptable to most citizens, and is freely used by political operations like the Anti-Defamation League and the Cult Awareness Network to “demonize” their political enemies.

SOURCES:

https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2850-the-crisis-in-culture-the-frankfurt-school-1923-1969

https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/socialism-and-family

https://ageofrevolution.org/themes/political-revolution/french-revolution/

https://cromwell-intl.com/travel/usa/us-wash-masonic.html

The Origin of the Political Terms Left and Right

https://www.nationalgeographic.fr/histoire/2020/01/comment-un-respectable-professeur-fonde-les-illuminati

Sacred Destabilization • Part Six: Interlude

By Eric • August 26, 2022


Early masonic engraving of Jewish freemasonry, B’Nai B’rith

One must understand that if one were in power, to secure such power in the most absolute terms, those with the power have the resources to propagate the weakening of the powerless, destroy them, all but bury them into the ground. The powerful are proponents of revolutionary spirit – as long as the target of this energy is used by the weak, to decimate the strong. As the strong are the only ones with the inherent abilities to eliminate the powerful, to come into power.

Embellished upon within the Kabbalah is the Sacred Geometry. This may also be called Sacred Proportion.

Stone Masons in practice utilize geometry and physics to build. The union of the practicality of functional geometry with the taboo-rich nature of Freemasonry – Sacred Geometry emerged – and it is used to this day far beyond symbols engraved in stone (to come in Part Seven).

Freemasonry had its organic roots as proper stone masons then evolved to include members of polite society – aristocracy, nobility – as the lure of the “secret society” was especially attractive taboo in a much stricter religious Europe centuries ago.

Within Judaism, in order for the messiah to arrive, the temple must be rebuilt. The Third Temple of Solomon. This stern belief emanated from freemasonry known as “The Great Work”.

We must also observe the aspect of the All-Seeing Eye. This is being realized by the surveillance apparatus or “Global Brain”, a term which reappears in academia, amongst the think tanks and in the tech sector repeatedly.

The aim of Zionism: achievement to bring the world under the kingdom, court and temple in Jerusalem, the center of the world, for the light amongst the nations to thrive. is to be guided under an augmentation of ideological international socialism called communitarianism.

The practice of religious and moral antinomianism is the method to disintegrate society, via the works of the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory philosophy.

The inversion of reality as we know it, the clown world, is on purpose.

We must also take into account what “the Left” is. What does this mean? Where does this come from? And the Right? Is there any difference now?

We will explore these topics going forward.



Infiltration by Sabbatean-Frankism into Occult Societies

Jacob Frank travelled to Frankfurt, Germany. He arrived in the city home to the House of Rothschild, the emerging global central banking dynasty.

Adam Weishaupt formed the Orden der Perfektibilisten (Order of Perfectibilists), on May 1st, 1776. This came to be known as the Illuminati of Bavaria.

There is much disagreement and conflicting literature and debate as to whether Weishaupt, Frank and Rothschild ever met and plotted together. This would be fascinating given the official community organizer Weishaupt of an organization with aspirations to subvert the elite secret societies of Europe, Frank the “Messiah”, the man carrying on and expanding the ways of antinomianism – and having these ways – (ie, the sexual degeneracy, the rejection of God’s word, etc} – permeate into the rituals that these secret societies have (see Bohemian Grove, or the discourse on the film Eyes Wide Shut). To have a desire to infiltrate the hidden world of the elite with a perverted form of mysticism as an intrigue – cap it off with the Ashkanazi Rothschild family’s amassing wealth and connections to powerful members of monarchies, nobilities and aristocracies – this is possible this happened with those three men pulling the strings.

It does not matter. It does not matter for one thing can be ascertained from the speculation:

A complex oligarchy of wealthy Jewish families has evolved over generations across the globe – wealth that is determined by the control of our planet’s resources. And this network has continued to evolve, benefiting from the deeds performed by powerful men and women that are members of a supernumerary plethora of secret societies.

Bourgeois Liberalism • Chronicles Magazine

Source: Chronicles Magazine

Since some of the articles in this number offer a critical discussion of liberalism, it might be helpful to consider what exactly that term means. Keeping in mind that the meaning has been changing since the end of the 18th century, I’ll start by listing four definitions, only the last of which seems to me to work.

First, we should reference what the media and chattering class label as “liberal,” which signifies whatever the user wants it to mean. For Ezra Klein at The New York Times, liberalism is perfectly compatible with abolishing gender distinctions or with Sarah Jeong’s tweet calling for the disappearance of white men, an apparent indiscretion that Klein passionately defended. This arbitrary use of “liberal” is comparable to the looseness with which the GOP media wield their god term “conservative,” which has been extended to such signs of the age as gay marriage and transgendered Republicans. In neither case do we learn what the terms under consideration mean historically, as opposed to what politicians and political journalists would like them to mean.

A second definition brings us to the common understanding of “liberal” among advocates of the welfare state and government-enforced social policy. It was the rise of what the socialist philosopher John Dewey called “the new liberalism” that inspired me to write After Liberalism, a book that focuses on the differences between the 19th-century concept of liberalism and 20th– century social democracy. The semantic extension of “liberal” was already going on in earlier attempts by the modern administrative state to alter the income curve and to colonize the family. Despite the effort to treat this massive interventionism in civil society as an affirmation of “freedom” based on self-government, it was exactly the opposite of what it claimed to be. Self-described libertarians like Albert J. Nock, H. L. Mencken, Friedrich Hayek, and Murray Rothbard were right to notice this obvious contradiction.

Still, our third definition, the libertarian alternative—particularly when yoked to a defense of radical lifestyles—hardly represents a return to the liberal ideals of an earlier time and society. Terms like “classical liberalism” and “19th-century liberalism” are now routinely linked to expressive individualism and the right of each person to do his own thing. This linkage has arisen from the selective citing of certain 19th-century sources, whether in defense of anarcho-capitalism or of a right to pursue certain peculiar moral practices. Some of the personalities who are associated with this idea of liberalism, like James Mill, his son John Stuart, Richard Cobden, and the German anarcho-individualist Max Stirner were not really “classical liberals.” In the age in which they lived, they were viewed as being on the political fringe. Unlike most liberals of their time, James Mill and Richard Cobden were in favor of both universal suffrage and international free trade. John Stuart Mill, who offered an extravagant defense of listening to all points of view in On Liberty, was an early feminist and advocate of the welfare state.

But outside of England, most self-described liberals in an earlier time were protectionists and defenders of the nation state. Like the English judge and philosopher Fitzjames Stephen and like Francois Guizot, the French premier in the 1830s and 1840s, these liberals resisted the plan to extend the suffrage to those without real property, who paid below a certain tax rate.

Which brings us to our fourth definition: liberalism, properly understood in those earlier times, was the lens through which the educated and propertied bourgeoisie (and note we are not just speaking here about an income group) understood the world and their place within it. Although evidence of this class could be found much earlier, the golden age for the bourgeoisie was the 19th and early 20th centuries. And contrary to what Marxists tell us, the bourgeoisie was not just running around amassing and investing capital. The bourgeoisie built a civilization centered on glittering cities, palatial homes, and the fostering of the arts and education.

Although there were Catholic liberals, perhaps most famously Lord Acton, liberals in general fitted more easily into Protestant than Catholic societies. For centuries, liberals had battled “clerical” enforcement of “just prices” and laws against usury (with roots going back to Aristotelian economics), societal influences of the Catholic Church. The Church also backed guild control of crafts and commerce, which limited trade competition and access to certain vocations. Needless to say, the bourgeoisie opposed such checks on trade and finance from wherever they came, and the Catholic Church represented for liberals the most unified opposition to desired economic change.

Again, there were exceptions, and both Catholic Belgium and the mostly Catholic regions of the Rhineland were among the pacesetters in industrial development and the expansion of investment credit. But there, too, the rising economic sector faced resistance from ecclesiastical authorities. This was true even in England, where the Anglican Church, into the early 19th century, opposed what it considered high interest rates. (Not surprisingly, a disproportionately large number of the English entrepreneurial class came from nonconformist Protestant backgrounds.)

This anticlerical tendency, which prevailed among the bourgeoisie in Catholic countries, did not translate into anything even distantly foreshadowing modern wokeness. Victorian morality thrived among the bourgeoisie; and the practice of separating the sexes socially was far more typical of the bourgeois class than of the older aristocratic order, in which philandering and the keeping of mistresses were hardly frowned upon. Although the affluent bourgeoisie avidly supported opera and civic festivities, their poorer cousins were often engaged in what Leo Strauss, paraphrasing the teaching of John Locke, described as “the joyless pursuit of joy.” Hard work was viewed as godly work, even if it brought, at least initially, scant reward. The prospering capitalist economy did not favor every interest and group equally, and far more ventures foundered than prospered in those regions of the West that were modernizing. Not every ship benefited to the same degree or at the same time from the rising flood of economic growth.

Although the bourgeoisie spoke about expanding freedom, they also stressed its moral limits. Public order took precedence over individual expressiveness; and discussions that were suitable for debating societies and academic lecture halls were not always acceptable in other social settings. Liberal societies were not only tolerant of what are today called “family values.” Such values were basic to their existence, as was the emphasis on women as mothers and wives. The expectation of most girls with whom I went to school in the 1950s was that they would become “homemakers,” and this did not testify to low self-esteem. Rather, it showed to what extent my fellow students were imbued with the social values cherished by our traditional social elites. What Amy Wax has referred to as “our Anglo-Protestant values”—values that once shaped American life and marked all religious denominations—are what sustained the traditional liberal society that existed by the 19th century.

Condemning that liberal order for practicing discrimination or for not imposing our present egalitarian ideology is an example of foolish presentism. Probably no one on the planet a hundred years ago held the social views of our present woke ruling class. Even the suffragettes, whatever their rhetorical excesses, made far less extravagant demands than did later feminists. The suffragettes wanted the right to vote and access to certain professions, and they sought more control over their property. These women also didn’t want their husbands to come home drunk, and many of them were staunch prohibitionists. But these advocates of “women’s rights” did not insist on abortion rights and were generally well-disposed toward being homemakers. Although more sweeping demands may have been implicit in their movement, there is no reason to treat these harbingers of a later feminism as being more radical than they actually were.

Although the liberal bourgeoisie opposed the slave trade and called for “putting slavery on the road to extinction,” they would not have been racial egalitarians even if they thought about such matters. These burghers usually had little contact with blacks, unless they were living in the American South or near a black urban neighborhood. The homage they paid to diversity might have been limited to a recognition that, at least in the sight of our Maker, all humans are in some sense equal. Our liberal bourgeoisie most certainly would not have favored extending voting rights to poor, illiterate blacks, but they also would not have wanted to give those rights to white people of the same economic and educational background. If these civic leaders and captains of industry were glaringly insensitive to any demographic, it would have been toward the predominantly white working class, a group that we on the populist right now champion.

But there is a difference in terms of the historical situation between the present populist right and workers’ organizations circa 1900. The latter were generally on the socialist left and favored government control of the economy and major income distribution. Today the working class has become a source of relative social and cultural stability. Because of both a managerial revolution and the cultural radicalization of the corporate class, our circumstances now differ dramatically from those of earlier times. The working class has been transformed into an ally of the right, a mainstay of the historical nation state, while corporate capitalists are now usually found on the cultural left. The onetime liberal order has now mostly passed; and older confrontations—e.g., between the bourgeoisie and an alliance of church and altar or between the bourgeoisie and the working class—have given way to a new struggle. It is the confrontation between the populist right and a globalist managerial class allied to a woke intelligentsia. This struggle is taking place in a postliberal West; and while we may lament the erosion of our liberal past, it is not about to come back.

Lest there be any confusion on this point, let me state that I’m not calling for the right to ditch traditional constitutional morality or respect for public order. We should uphold such guiding principles to whatever extent that course remains open to us. Unless I’m mistaken, however, such vestiges of the liberal past may be less and less operational going forward. We should therefore not be surprised if the power grabs by the woke left become even more outrageous as our postliberal fate unfolds.

Climate and COVID Delivered from the Same Technocratic Trojan Horse of Tyranny: Discerning the Globalist Truth from a Bill Gates Interview • Political moonshine

We need a new way of doing the vaccines. Those blindsiding and dystopian words derive from an interview of Bill Gates following the administration to the world of 7.4 billion doses of experimental mRNA pseudo-vaccines. A new way to replace the new way, he said. The interview unfolds like a Globalist infomercial oozing and dripping the requisite narrative and talking points and it should be consumed fully but only after first consuming the discernment of truth provided here.

Through the application of a discerning lens, one can see the truth that Bill Gates proffers and it will present here as unvarnished and tethered back to existing work and positions so as to provide a comprehensive and fulsome explanation of what is being done to us and how they’re doing it.

Through the lens of a poker player or a psychologist – take your pick, whichever hat fits best – observing basic elements of human nature like facial expressions, hand gestures and body position undo Gates relative to the content he provides. In short, Bill must be a horrendous card player because he is incapable of lying without specific tells, such as his uncontrollable wry smile and his attempts to veil it when it gets away from him.

Between that smile and his hands of arthritic disfigurement, he’s a difficult if not unbearable person to tolerate and especially so against the backdrop of his wealth, power and nefarious designs for all of us. The type of miscreant to cower on his knees and perhaps shit his pants in the absence of all that and in the face of true adversity, like the scenario of standing alone and across from an unprivileged, informed and motivated grown man with the skill set and desire to redress his grievances in biblical fashion.

How I miss the good old days. Digressing.

A new way to replace the new way is what Gates told us in his interview sourced from Jordan Schachtel and featured at Zero Hedge. Schachtel excludes the bulk of the interview getting right to COVID meat and potatoes and I’m slowing it down and translating all of the important segments because they deliver abundant and meaningful details once discerned.

The interview [linked in the ZH item] featured by Dean Godson of the Policy Exchange between Rt. Hon. Jeremy Hunt MP and Gates centers on “the future of liberal democracies” and the ways technology and climate can “change the rules of the game.” Let’s be clear here. Despite the Policy Exchange being described as center-right to right, the first several minutes of this interview reveals naked Globalism and demonstrates that there is nothing right about this.

Gates is describing the elements of our Trojan Horse that he will expand on collectively.

In consideration of climate and technology changing the rules, Hunt quotes Gates’ book, “This is going to be hard. We need cooperation with China.”

China’s installed proxy, Joe Biden, factors into this equation further bearing down on the governance of the U.S. since the functional usurpation of Article II Executive authority on 13 Mar 20. Gates isn’t seeking to tie together a relationship as he’s suggesting here, rather he’s establishing useful pretext for the future and in reference to an existing relationship. Moreover, does anyone recall electing Gates or him having gone to medical school?

At this point, Gates and Hunt have built most of the horse with China, climate and technology and with COVID-19 on deck.

Pertaining to climate, Gates said, “In 2015, we didn’t have a focus on innovation” and “the cause was not talked about that much.”

Consider this contrary headline and quote from CBS News on 12 Dec 15, ‘Technology that could disrupt the course of climate change,’

“When President Obama spoke at a news conference at the end of his two-day appearance at the COP21 climate conference in Paris, he stressed the need to seek innovative solutions to combat climate change.

“I actually think we’re going to solve this thing,” he said. “We have to push away fear and have confidence that human innovation, our values, our judgment, our solidarity, it will win out.”

Many experts believe seeking innovative solutions is key to making a dent in carbon emissions and ensuring that Earth doesn’t eventually warm to catastrophic levels, commonly considered anything beyond the threshold of 2 degrees Celsius above the average temperature from before the Industrial Revolution.”

Climate and COVID Delivered from the Same Technocratic Trojan Horse of Tyranny: Discerning the Globalist Truth from a Bill Gates Interview — Political moonshine

A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY: SYSTEMIC COLLAPSE AND PANDEMIC SIMULATION • Philosophical Salon

By: Fabio Vighi

Source: Original Article

A year and a half after the arrival of Virus, some may have started wondering why the usually unscrupulous ruling elites decided to freeze the global profit-making machine in the face of a pathogen that targets almost exclusively the unproductive (over 80s). Why all the humanitarian zeal? Cui bono? Only those who are unfamiliar with the wondrous adventures of GloboCap can delude themselves into thinking that the system chose to shut down out of compassion. Let us be clear from the start: the big predators of oil, arms, and vaccines could not care less about humanity.

Follow the money
In pre-Covid times, the world economy was on the verge of another colossal meltdown. Here is a brief chronicle of how the pressure was building up:

June 2019: In its Annual Economic Report, the Swiss-based Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the ‘Central Bank of all central banks’, sets the international alarm bells ringing. The document highlights “overheating […] in the leveraged loan market”, where “credit standards have been deteriorating” and “collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) have surged – reminiscent of the steep rise in collateralized debt obligations [CDOs] that amplified the subprime crisis [in 2008].” Simply stated, the belly of the financial industry is once again full of junk.

9 August 2019: The BIS issues a working paper calling for “unconventional monetary policy measures” to “insulate the real economy from further deterioration in financial conditions”. The paper indicates that, by offering “direct credit to the economy” during a crisis, central bank lending “can replace commercial banks in providing loans to firms.”

15 August 2019: Blackrock Inc., the world’s most powerful investment fund (managing around $7 trillion in stock and bond funds), issues a white paper titled Dealing with the next downturn. Essentially, the paper instructs the US Federal Reserve to inject liquidity directly into the financial system to prevent “a dramatic downturn.” Again, the message is unequivocal: “An unprecedented response is needed when monetary policy is exhausted and fiscal policy alone is not enough. That response will likely involve ‘going direct’”: “finding ways to get central bank money directly in the hands of public and private sector spenders” while avoiding “hyperinflation. Examples include the Weimar Republic in the 1920s as well as Argentina and Zimbabwe more recently.”

22-24 August 2019: G7 central bankers meet in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, to discuss BlackRock’s paper along with urgent measures to prevent the looming meltdown. In the prescient words of James Bullard, President of the St Louis Federal Reserve: “We just have to stop thinking that next year things are going to be normal.”

15-16 September 2019: The downturn is officially inaugurated by a sudden spike in the repo rates (from 2% to 10.5%). ‘Repo’ is shorthand for ‘repurchase agreement’, a contract where investment funds lend money against collateral assets (normally Treasury securities). At the time of the exchange, financial operators (banks) undertake to buy back the assets at a higher price, typically overnight. In brief, repos are short-term collateralized loans. They are the main source of funding for traders in most markets, especially the derivatives galaxy. A lack of liquidity in the repo market can have a devastating domino effect on all major financial sectors.

17 September 2019: The Fed begins the emergency monetary programme, pumping hundreds of billions of dollars per week into Wall Street, effectively executing BlackRock’s “going direct” plan. (Unsurprisingly, in March 2020 the Fed will hire BlackRock to manage the bailout package in response to the ‘COVID-19 crisis’).

19 September 2019: Donald Trump signs Executive Order 13887, establishing a National Influenza Vaccine Task Force whose aim is to develop a “5-year national plan (Plan) to promote the use of more agile and scalable vaccine manufacturing technologies and to accelerate development of vaccines that protect against many or all influenza viruses.” This is to counteract “an influenza pandemic”, which, “unlike seasonal influenza […] has the potential to spread rapidly around the globe, infect higher numbers of people, and cause high rates of illness and death in populations that lack prior immunity”. As someone guessed, the pandemic was imminent, while in Europe too preparations were underway (see here and here).

18 October 2019: In New York, a global zoonotic pandemic is simulated during Event 201, a strategic exercise coordinated by the Johns Hopkins Biosecurity Center and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

21-24 January 2020: The World Economic Forum’s annual meeting takes place in Davos, Switzerland, where both the economy and vaccinations are discussed.

23 January 2020: China puts Wuhan and other cities of the Hubei province in lockdown.

11 March 2020: The WHO’s director general calls Covid-19 a pandemic. The rest is history.

Joining the dots is a simple enough exercise. If we do so, we might see a well-defined narrative outline emerge, whose succinct summary reads as follows: lockdowns and the global suspension of economic transactions were intended to 1) Allow the Fed to flood the ailing financial markets with freshly printed money while deferring hyperinflation; and 2) Introduce mass vaccination programmes and health passports as pillars of a neo-feudal regime of capitalist accumulation. As we shall see, the two aims merge into one.

In 2019, world economy was plagued by the same sickness that had caused the 2008 credit crunch. It was suffocating under an unsustainable mountain of debt. Many public companies could not generate enough profit to cover interest payments on their own debts and were staying afloat only by taking on new loans. ‘Zombie companies’ (with year-on-year low profitability, falling turnover, squeezed margins, limited cashflow, and highly leveraged balance sheet) were rising everywhere. The repo market meltdown of September 2019 must be placed within this fragile economic context.

When the air is saturated with flammable materials, any spark can cause the explosion. And in the magical world of finance, tout se tient: one flap of a butterfly’s wings in a certain sector can send the whole house of cards tumbling down. In financial markets powered by cheap loans, any increase in interest rates is potentially cataclysmic for banks, hedge funds, pension funds and the entire government bond market, because the cost of borrowing increases and liquidity dries up. This is what happened with the ‘repocalypse’ of September 2019: interest rates spiked to 10.5% in a matter of hours, panic broke out affecting futures, options, currencies, and other markets where traders bet by borrowing from repos. The only way to defuse the contagion was by throwing as much liquidity as necessary into the system – like helicopters dropping thousands of gallons of water on a wildfire. Between September 2019 and March 2020, the Fed injected more than $9 trillion into the banking system, equivalent to more than 40% of US GDP.

The mainstream narrative should therefore be reversed: the stock market did not collapse (in March 2020) because lockdowns had to be imposed; rather, lockdowns had to be imposed because financial markets were collapsing. With lockdowns came the suspension of business transactions, which drained the demand for credit and stopped the contagion. In other words, restructuring the financial architecture through extraordinary monetary policy was contingent on the economy’s engine being turned off. Had the enormous mass of liquidity pumped into the financial sector reached transactions on the ground, a monetary tsunami with catastrophic consequences would have been unleashed.

As claimed by economist Ellen Brown, it was “another bailout”, but this time “under cover of a virus.” Similarly, John Titus and Catherine Austin Fitts noted that the Covid-19 “magic wand” allowed the Fed to execute BlackRock’s “going direct” plan, literally: it carried out an unprecedented purchase of government bonds, while, on an infinitesimally smaller scale, also issuing government backed ‘COVID loans’ to businesses. In brief, only an induced economic coma would provide the Fed with the room to defuse the time-bomb ticking away in the financial sector. Screened by mass-hysteria, the US central bank plugged the holes in the interbank lending market, dodging hyperinflation as well as the ‘Financial Stability Oversight Council’ (the federal agency for monitoring financial risk created after the 2008 collapse), as discussed here. However, the “going direct” blueprint should also be framed as a desperate measure, for it can only prolong the agony of a global economy increasingly hostage to money printing and the artificial inflation of financial assets.

At the heart of our predicament lies an insurmountable structural impasse. Debt-leveraged financialization is contemporary capitalism’s only line of flight, the inevitable forward-escape route for a reproductive model that has reached its historical limit. Capitals head for financial markets because the labour-based economy is increasingly unprofitable. How did we get to this?

The answer can be summarised as follows: 1. The economy’s mission to generate surplus-value is both the drive to exploit the workforce and to expel it from production. This is what Marx called capitalism’s “moving contradiction”.[1] While it constitutes the essence of our mode of production, this contradiction today backfires, turning political economy into a mode of permanent devastation. 2. The reason for this change of fortune is the objective failure of the labour-capital dialectic: the unprecedented acceleration in technological automation since the 1980s causes more labour-power to be ejected from production than (re)absorbed. The contraction of the volume of wages means that the purchasing power of a growing part of the world population is falling, with debt and immiseration as inevitable consequences. 3. As less surplus-value is produced, capital seeks immediate returns in the debt-leveraged financial sector rather than in the real economy or by investing in socially constructive sectors like education, research, and public services.

The bottom line is that the paradigm shift underway is the necessary condition for the (dystopian) survival of capitalism, which is no longer able to reproduce itself through mass wage-labour and the attendant consumerist utopia. The pandemic agenda was dictated, ultimately, by systemic implosion: the profitability downturn of a mode of production which rampant automation is making obsolete. For this immanent reason, capitalism is increasingly dependent on public debt, low wages, centralisation of wealth and power, a permanent state of emergency, and financial acrobatics.

If we ‘follow the money’, we will see that the economic blockade deviously attributed to Virus has achieved far from negligible results, not only in terms of social engineering, but also of financial predation. I will quickly highlight four of them.

1) As anticipated, it has allowed the Fed to reorganise the financial sector by printing a continuous stream of billions of dollars out of thin air; 2) It has accelerated the extinction of small and medium-sized companies, allowing major groups to monopolise trade flows; 3) It has further depressed labour wages and facilitated significant capital savings through ‘smart working’ (which is particularly smart for those who implement it); 4) It has enabled the growth of e-commerce, the explosion of Big Tech, and the proliferation of the pharma-dollar – which also includes the much disparaged plastic industry, now producing millions of new facemasks and gloves every week, many of which end up in the oceans (to the delight of the ‘green new dealers’). In 2020 alone, the wealth of the planet’s 2,200 or so billionaires grew by $1.9 trillion, an increase without historical precedent. All this thanks to a pathogen so lethal that, according to official data, only 99.8% of the infected survive (see here and here), most of them without experiencing any symptoms.

Doing capitalism differently

The economic motif of the Covid whodunit must be placed within a broader context of social transformation. If we scratch the surface of the official narrative, a neo-feudal scenario begins to take form. Masses of increasingly unproductive consumers are being regimented and cast aside, simply because Mr Global no longer knows what to do with them. Together with the underemployed and the excluded, the impoverished middle-classes are now a problem to be handled with the stick of lockdowns, curfews, mass vaccination, propaganda, and the militarisation of society, rather than with the carrot of work, consumption, participatory democracy, social rights (replaced in collective imagination by the civil rights of minorities), and ‘well-earned holidays.’

It is therefore delusional to believe that the purpose of lockdowns is therapeutic and humanitarian. When has capital ever cared for the people? Indifference and misanthropy are the typical traits of capitalism, whose only real passion is profit, and the power that comes with it. Today, capitalist power can be summed up with the names of the three biggest investment funds in the world: BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street Global Advisor. These giants, sitting at the centre of a huge galaxy of financial entities, manage a mass of value close to half the global GDP, and are major shareholders in around 90% of listed companies. Around them gravitate transnational institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bank for International Settlements, whose function is to coordinate consensus within the financial constellation. We can safely assume that all key strategic decisions – economic, political and military – are at least heavily influenced by these elites. Or do we want to believe that Virus has taken them by surprise? Rather, SARS-CoV-2 – which, by admission of the CDC and the European Commission has never been isolated nor purified – is the name of a special weapon of psychological warfare that was deployed in the moment of greatest need.

Why should we trust a mega pharmaceutical cartel (the WHO) that is not in charge of ‘public health’, but rather of marketing private products worldwide at the most profitable rates possible? Public health problems stem from abysmal working conditions, poor nutrition, air, water, and food pollution, and above all from rampant poverty; yet none of these ‘pathogens’ are on the WHO’s list of humanitarian concerns. The immense conflicts of interest between the predators of the pharmaceutical industry, national and supranational medical agencies, and the cynical political enforcers, is now an open secret. No wonder that on the day COVID-19 was classified as a pandemic, the WEF, together with the WHO, launched the Covid Action Platform, a “protection of life” coalition run by over 1,000 of the world’s most powerful private companies.

The only thing that matters for the clique directing the health emergency orchestra is to feed the profit-making machine, and every move is planned to this end, with the support of a political and media front motivated by opportunism. If the military industry needs wars, the pharmaceutical industry needs diseases. It is no coincidence that ‘public health’ is by far the most profitable sector of the world economy, to the extent that Big Pharma spends about three times as much as Big Oil and twice as much as Big Tech on lobbying. The potentially endless demand for vaccines and experimental gene concoctions offers pharmaceutical cartels the prospect of almost unlimited profit streams, especially when guaranteed by mass vaccination programmes subsidised by public money (i.e., by more debt that will fall on our heads).

Why have all Covid treatments been criminally banned or sabotaged? As the FDA candidly admits, the use of emergency vaccines is only possible if “there are no suitable, approved and available alternatives”. A case of truth hidden in plain sight. Moreover, the current vaccine religion is closely linked to the rise of the pharma-dollar, which, by feeding on pandemics, is set to emulate the glories of the ‘petro-dollar’, allowing the United States to continue to exercise global monetary supremacy. Why should the whole of humanity (including children!) inject experimental ‘vaccines’ with increasingly worrying yet systematically downplayed adverse effects, when more than 99% of those infected, the vast majority asymptomatic, recover? The answer is obvious: because vaccines are the golden calf of the third millennium, while humanity is ‘last generation’ exploitation material in guinea pig modality.

Given this context, the staging of the emergency pantomime succeeds through an unheard-of manipulation of public opinion. Every ‘public debate’ on the pandemic is shamelessly privatised, or rather monopolised by the religious belief in technical-scientific committees bankrolled by the financial elites. Every ‘free discussion’ is legitimised by adherence to pseudo-scientific protocols carefully purged from the socio-economic context: one ‘follows the science’ while pretending not to know that ‘science follows the money’. Karl Popper’s famous statement that “real science” is only possible under the aegis of liberal capitalism in what he called “the open society”,[1] is now coming true in the globalist ideology that animates, among others, George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. The combination of “real science” and “open and inclusive society” makes the Covid doctrine almost impossible to challenge.

For COVID-19, then, we could imagine the following agenda. A fictitious narrative is prepared based on an epidemic risk presented in such a way as to promote fear and submissive behaviour. Most likely a case of diagnostic reclassification. All that is needed is an epidemiologically ambiguous influenza virus, on which to build an aggressive tale of contagion relatable to geographical areas where the impact of respiratory or vascular diseases in the elderly and immunocompromised population is high – perhaps with the aggravating factor of heavy pollution. There is no need to make much up, given that intensive care units in ‘advanced’ countries had already collapsed in the years preceding the arrival of Covid, with mortality peaks for which no one had dreamed of exhuming quarantine. In other words, public health systems had already been demolished, and thus prepared for the pandemic scenario.

But this time there is method in madness: a state of emergency is declared, which triggers panic, in turn causing the clogging up of hospitals and care homes (at high risk of sepsis), the application of nefarious protocols, and the suspension of medical care. Et voilà, the killer Virus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy! The propaganda raging across the main centres of financial power (especially North America and Europe) is essential to maintaining the ‘state of exception’ (Carl Schmitt), which is immediately accepted as the only possible form of political and existential rationality. Entire populations exposed to heavy media bombardment surrender through self-discipline, adhering with grotesque enthusiasm to forms of ‘civic responsibility’ in which coercion morphs into altruism.

The whole pandemic script – from the ‘contagion curve’ to the ‘Covid deaths’ – rests on the PCR test, which was authorised for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by a study produced in record time on commission from the WHO. As many will know by now, the diagnostic unreliability of the PCR test was denounced by its inventor himself, Nobel laureate Kary Mullis (unfortunately passed away on 7 August 2019), and recently reiterated by, among others, 22 internationally renowned experts who demanded its removal for clear scientific flaws. Obviously, the request fell on deaf ears.

The PCR test is the driving force behind the pandemic. It works through the infamous ‘cycle thresholds’: the more cycles you make, the more false positives (infections, Covid-deaths) you produce, as even guru Anthony Fauci recklessly admitted when he stated that swabs are worthless above 35 cycles. Now, why is it that during the pandemic, amplifications of 35 cycles or more were routinely carried out in laboratories all over the world? Even the New York Times – certainly not a den of dangerous Covid-deniers – raised this key question last summer. Thanks to the sensitivity of the swab, the pandemic can be turned on and off like a tap, allowing the health regime to exert full control over the ‘numerological monster’ of Covid cases and deaths – the key instruments of everyday terror.

All this fearmongering continues today, despite the easing of some measures. To understand why, we should return to the economic motif. As noted, several trillions of newly printed cash have been created with a few clicks of a mouse by central banks and injected into financial systems, where they have in great part remained. The aim of the printing-spree was to plug calamitous liquidity gaps. Most of this ‘magic-tree money’ is still frozen inside the shadow banking system, the stock exchanges, and various virtual currency schemes that are not meant to be used for spending and investment. Their function is solely to provide cheap loans for financial speculation. This is what Marx called ‘fictitious capital’, which continues to expand in an orbital loop that is now completely independent of economic cycles on the ground.

The bottom line is that all this cash cannot be allowed to flood the real economy, for the latter would overheat and trigger hyperinflation. And this is where Virus continues to come in handy. If it initially served to “insulate the real economy” (to quote again from the BIS paper), it now oversees its tentative reopening, characterized by submission to the vaccination dogma and chromatic methods of mass regimentation, which may soon include climate lockdowns. Remember how we were told that only vaccines would give us back our ‘freedom’? All too predictably, we now discover that the road to freedom is littered with ‘variants’, that is to say, iterations of Virus. Their purpose is to increase the ‘case count’ and therefore prolong those states of emergency that justify central banks’ production of virtual money aimed at monetizing debt and financing deficits. Rather than returning to normal interest rates, the elites opt to normalize the health emergency by feeding the contagion ghost. The much-publicised ‘tapering’ (reduction of monetary stimulus) can therefore wait – just like Pandexit.

In the EU, for instance, the European Central Bank’s €1.85 trillion ‘pandemic emergency purchase program’, known as PEPP, is currently set to continue until March 2022. However, it has been intimated it might need to be extended beyond that date. In the meantime, the Delta variant is wreaking havoc on the travel and tourism industry, with new restrictions (including quarantine) disrupting the summer season. Again, we seem to be caught within a self-fulfilling prophecy (especially if, as Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier and many others have intimated, variants, however mild, are the consequence of aggressive mass vaccination campaigns). Whatever the case, the fundamental point is that Virus is still needed by senile capitalism, whose only chance of survival depends on generating a paradigm shift from liberalism to oligarchic authoritarianism.

While their crime is far from perfect, the orchestrators of this global coup must nevertheless be credited with a certain sadistic brilliance. Their sleight of hand succeeded, perhaps even beyond expectations. However, any power aiming at totalisation is destined to fail, and this applies also to the high priests of the Covid religion and the institutional puppets they have mobilised to roll out the health emergency psyop. After all, power tends to delude itself about its omnipotence. Those sitting in the control room fail to realise the extent to which their dominance is uncertain. What they do not see is that their authority depends on a ‘higher mission’, to which they remain partly blind, namely the anonymous self-reproduction of the capitalist matrix. Today’s power lies with the profit-making machine whose only purpose is to continue its reckless journey, potentially leading to the premature extinction of Homo sapiens. The elites who have conned the world into Covid-obedience are the anthropomorphic manifestation of the capitalist automaton, whose invisibility is as cunning as that of Virus itself. And the novelty of our era is that the ‘locked-down society’ is the model that best guarantees the reproducibility of the capitalist machine, irrespective of its dystopian destination.

Notes:

[1] Karl Marx, Grundrisse (London: Penguin, 1993), 706.

[2] Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, 2 volumes (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2013).

Stakeholder Globalism • American Mind

Source: https://americanmind.org/salvo/stakeholder-globalism/

Armed security personnel stand guard on the rooftop of a hotel, next to letters reading “Davos” surrounded by snow, near the Congress Centre on January 25, 2018 in Davos, eastern Switzerland. / AFP PHOTO / Fabrice COFFRINI (Photo credit should read FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images)

At the end of the twentieth century, the triumph of capitalist democracy convinced many that the field of human advancement had been cleared of adversaries. In the ensuing decades, Westerners were shocked to discover that field had filled with technological challengers.

As Cambridge historian David Runciman notes in How Democracy Ends, “the information technology revolution has completely altered the terms on which democracy must operate.” Capitalism is becoming less democratic and democracy less capitalist. Surveillance cameras are embedded in more places; cell phones track our movements; programs log our keystrokes.

The resulting information is fed into databases and assembled into profiles of unprecedented depth and fungibility. The decline in personal privacy might be worthwhile if it were matched by comparable levels of democratic choice and transparency. But for the most part, it is not. Unauthorized opinions are increasingly censored online, while giants like Amazon, Apple, and Google bar disfavored customers and businesses from their marketplaces.This shifting relationship between capitalism and democracy has not gone unnoticed by the West’s sharpest critics. At his first press conference in 20 years, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid was asked about the Taliban’s commitment to freedom of speech. Journalists, Mujahid suggested, should ask the “promoters of freedom of speech” at Facebook why his government is banned from posting on Instagram and WhatsApp.The irony is rich.

In the heady millenarian days at the “end of history,” Silicon Valley imbued Big Tech with the wide-eyed spirit of the idealistic counterculture. Today, however, these former cultural nonconformists have become global gatekeepers. Twitter’s decision to suspend President Trump after the unrest at the Capitol opened the floodgates for tech companies and other services to ban political dissidents from their platforms.What is becoming clear is that there was a crucial flaw in the end-of-history vision.

What if the capitalists lose interest in democracy or find it inconvenient?

An intriguing concept almost unused in journalism but common in political discourse is a “globalist state” whose members have given up part of their sovereignty in return for a say in their neighbors’ affairs.Big Tech is at home in this globalized schema. Like most billionaires, Mark Zuckerberg regards the concept of nationalism with open hostility. The “struggle of our time,” Zuckerberg suggested, pits the “forces of freedom, openness and global community against the forces of authoritarianism, isolationism and nationalism. Forces for the flow of knowledge, trade and immigration against those who would slow them down.”Those who seek a grand conspiracy theory to explain this phenomenon will be disappointed. What we are dealing with here are often marginal reforms—a trickle rather than a flood. From western Europe to sub-Saharan Africa, policy-makers are moving many policy fields “upwards,” to the international or supranational arena, and “downwards” to NGOs and private companies.

This has been accompanied by a modest measure of structural change which has allowed powerful bureaucracies in the UN more control over national affairs.One influential advocate of this outlook is the former British prime minister Theresa May. Speaking to the House of Commons on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, May described the events unfolding in the region as a “major setback” for UK foreign policy, adding: “We boast about Global Britain, but where is Global Britain on the streets of Kabul?” May found it “incomprehensible” and “worrying” that the UK was not able to bring together an alternative peacekeeping alliance.Globalism is best conceptualised less as a fantastic conspiracy so much as an emergent phenomenon among elites with overlapping interests, the goal of which is to deterritorialize politics. Members of the professional and managerial elite—journalists, economists, humanitarian aid workers, technologists—have adopted a very different attitude to borders than sectors of society who are bounded to their community’s territory.

As Zygmunt Bauman observed in the 2000s, territorial allegiances have become a class-specific property.Why history hasn’t endedIt would be difficult to exaggerate the significance of this change. For many hundreds of years, nationalism was the bedrock of international relations. Foreigners were routinely considered to be outsiders and could not be full members of the moral community.Over the past couple of decades, however, we have seen a dramatic reversal of this rule: pre-political ties are expanding to include larger groups, nations, families of nations, and perhaps even all humans. As a result, elite positions on global issues actually tend to be highly incoherent, and the need to consult “stakeholders” often leads to more liberal policy outcomes.A case in point here is the British government’s failure to stem the flow of illegal immigrants crossing the Channel in record numbers.

In 2019, the British Home Secretary, Priti Patel, campaigned on a platform of opposition to mass immigration, withdrawal from key human rights laws, and hostility to illegal entrants and bogus asylum seekers. Her views accurately reflected the opinions of the great majority of Conservative members, as well as great swathes of the electorate. They were not, however, acceptable within 10 Downing Street, so she failed to muster the support necessary to “take back control.”This state of affairs illuminates one of the central paradoxes of Western politics.

Although the technical capacity of states to control immigration has increased rather than diminished, and border control is widely held to be common sense by the majority of the population in every country, most Western governments are reluctant to implement effective enforcement of their own immigration laws. There is a gap between what politicians say and what politicians do, because immigration policy is considered above the pay grade of the masses. It is the domain of the globalist managers.

The withdrawal of the elites: Globalism belongs to a species of liberal thinking that deplores barriers to trade and disapproves strongly of borders. ‘’Openness,” “inclusion,” “diversity”: the globalist is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against the exigencies of geography. The key articulators of this movement now include not only Silicon Valley but also the military-intelligence complex, NGOs, and non-institutionalised protest groups whose global operations are facilitated by smartphones.Globalism has ushered in a period of massive wealth redistribution, from the lower middle class to the superrich, and from towns to cities. Today, a large firm in a modern city can source its capital in Shanghai, locate its industrial plant in Wolfsburg, and tap information from a database in Bangalore. Moreover, thanks to improvements in transport technology and infrastructure, businesses can hire large numbers of overseas graduates whose skills could not be realistically recruited from the domestic labor market. This explains why big business and its agents of opinion are without exception supporters of “Global Britain.”Meanwhile, at the lower end of the labor market, foreign workers are increasingly used to fill jobs that are considered too degrading for the native population to undertake.

Whether that is a good or a bad thing is a matter for some debate, but it is beyond question that the wealthy now prefer employing cheap labor from abroad. Today, as David Edgerton argues in The Rise and Fall of The British Nation, “a new anti-egalitarian snobbism is permissible, and a certain reactionary chic possible.”This is a formidable combination. And it is easy to see why elites don’t want to give up on it, at least not yet.

However, these policies must be debated with the utmost honesty if we are to do what is best for our country and for the planet. There is no denying that a gap has opened up between civilians, soldiers, governments, and corporations: the “we” feeling seems no longer to have a voice among our leaders.Contrary to what many have said, globalism does not rid the world of the nation state. It does, however, delimit it. Once in a position of power, globalists will hive off the functions of the state and farm them out to a complex range of extra-governmental organizations and semi-independent bodies. Their key function is to push “the rules of the game” beyond the reach of democratic politics, the strategy of deterritorialization. To a large extent, therefore, conflicts over territorial sovereignty have replaced many of the more familiar ideological battles of the twentieth century.

Part III of IV—A Brief History of World Credit & Interest Rates • 1690 – 1774 A.D. The Dawn of Capitalism | Armstrong Economics

by Martin A. Armstrong

©Copyright PEI

1690 – 1774 AD
The eighteenth century was a period of strong economic and political growth for Britain. Constitutional parliamentary government, which had replaced the monarchy, appeared to foster great national expansion. The currency of Britain remained very stabled during the eighteenth century. There were no debasements and gold was made officially legal tender in 1717. By 1774, payments in silver were limited to 25 pounds, which effectively created a gold standard by defacto.

Nonetheless, the British government was indeed the biggest primary borrower. The national debt grew always due to war efforts. A usury limitation on interest was finally established at 6% but was later reduced to 5% in 1714. Private debt was set according to government rates and maturities. Because of this limitation of interest, private borrowings could be funded only when government demand for borrowings declined. This often created small credit crunches particularly during periods of war. The English national debt rose from 1 million pounds in 1689 to 900 million by 1800. Interest rates tended to decline on government debt from an 8% high down to 3% by the mid-1730’s. However, as government debt escalated, rates began to rise. The steepest advances came after the government floated the famous 3% consols of 1751. From 1754 onward, rates tended to rise. By the end of the eighteenth century, consols fell by 50% in price and the government was forced to pay rates as high as 6.5%.

Eighteenth century Britain was also a period of inflation and speculation. As capital concentrated once again and prosperity blossomed, speculation took the form of many strange circumstances. Insurance companies prospered during this period and the policies that they issued were the target of speculators. Life insurance was bought when one wished to gamble on another’s life. Insurance on ships was another commonplace speculation.

More organized speculation was also present. A large and liquid market had sprung up in the trade of company shares. Government often floated debt through the means of attaching lotteries. Of course, the famous South Sea Bubble took place in 1720. This was actually promoted by a government scheme to convince holders of government debt to convert it into the shares of an official trading company known as the South Sea Company. In theory, this government-sponsored company would hold the government debt as an asset. The problem was that the share prices rose from 128 pounds to 1000 pounds per share that year. Holders of debt were enticed to swap their debt for shares as they stood by and watched share prices soar. When the bubble burst, share prices collapsed back to the 135 level. The outrage was so indignant that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was imprisoned and Parliament passed the “Bubble Act” which greatly restricted the formation of any new companies.

A similar speculation, but less known, was the Mississippi Bubble. This was of French origin also involving a government sponsored trading company intended to promote trade between New Orleans and France. The venture failed to attract reputable emigrants and New Orleans remained no more than a dismal collection of wooden shacks. The entire affair turned out to be yet another stock speculation that sent many French investors into financial ruin.

Although history would like to classify these two incidents as unusual, the truth is that investors were eager for speculation of any kind. Commodities were also the target of speculation as were many shares of private companies. Both the Mississippi and South Sea stocks received the greatest attention because they were the leading speculative issues of the time. But it is important to keep in mind that speculation was not restricted to these issues and was widespread showing up even in the Americas. In fact, speculation was also widespread in Japan, which had no financial connection with that of Western Europe or America. The shogun Yoshimune banned all expensive clothing, furniture, cakes, candies, and other extravagances in an austerity decree in hopes of controlling inflation.

The words “Stock Exchange” first appeared in 1773 over the door of New Jonathan’s Coffee House when a fee was levied on admittance. Stock trading was traditionally done on the “curb” outside. Often, traders would congregate in coffeehouses. Jonathan’s was a central meeting place and served as the cradle for the London Stock Exchange which eventually moved into its own building in 1802.

Industrialization was flourishing in Britain while in France the guilds fought hard to retain their monopolies and refused to accept any new ideas. This closed mind approach in France eventually set the stage for its economic decline and British dominance. France had lost most of its colonial empire but gained somewhat as a military power in Europe. The Italians had never recovered from the defaults of France and Spain and Germany was still a group of small states restricting trade and imposing tariffs against one another.

French defaults to some extent still occurred during the eighteenth century. The previous debt issues that paid 7% to 8.5% were simply reduced by force in 1710. By this it is meant that the government simply stated that it would no longer pay the higher rates of interest. Government debt tended to yield higher rates of interest in general by 1-2% over that of good quality private issues. Therefore, in 1720 when the Mississippi Bubble arose, a similar scheme to exchange government debt for stock was fairly well received particularly since the same scheme was in effect in Britain.

The Dutch lost most of their trade as nations expanded ports. Their alliance with Britain increasingly made them the smaller partner in the pact and eventually, the Dutch gravitated more toward a center of finance than trade.

In the United States, the colonists had brought with them the English laws regarding usury that for the most part set the legal maximum rate at 6%. But this limitation on interest rates was not uniform throughout all the colonies. Massachusetts had established the maximum rate at 8% in 1661. Virginia set the legal usury rate at 5% while Pennsylvania established its rates ranging from 6% to 10%.

The invention of paper money within the western world is largely credited to the American Colonies. Although Marco Polo during the 1300’s brought back news of how the Emperors of China circulated mulberry bark paper as money, the news had little more effect upon Western minds than to serve as a humorous joke. But one of the early paper money issues in Europe came in 1661 and was issued by Stockholm’s Banco to avoid a constant movement of payments in Swedish copper plate money which was heavy and bulky to say the least.

In the Americas, paper money began as an emergency measure in 1685 in Canada when the French military payroll failed to arrive. In order to pay the troops, the intendent, Jacques Demuelles took normal playing cards and cut them into quarter sections. He then inscribed denominations, signed the scraps of paper and declared them to be legal tender as well as redeemable when the “ship came in” – which gave rise to that memorable phase. After a while, this seemed to be a fool’s game and sooner than expected, additional playing card issues emerged as money in 1686, 1690, 1691 and 1692. Payment of course was deferred from one year to the next and the scheme was suppressed for a while in 1701. However, card money continued until eventually a collapse of the monetary system in Canada took place in 1757.

The first official governmental issue of paper money began in the Province of Massachusetts Bay before the Bank of England attempted it in 1694 followed by the Bank of Scotland in 1696. But by far, America would become the greatest experiment for paper money economics.

England had adopted the policy of extracting gold and silver coin from the American Colonies and most transactions during the 17th and 18th centuries were accomplished with paper money or drafts for goods from British merchants.

The real start of this paper money experiment came in 1690 when Massachusetts Bay paid for a military expedition to Canada during King William’s War with paper money referred to as Bills of Credit. To encourage circulation, the Bills of Credit would gain you a 5% discount when used to pay your taxes. From this point on, most other Colonies followed the lead and issued paper money in payment largely for military expenses. This form of paper money was called specifically “Bills of Credit” since the Crown did not extend the right to any Colony to issue “money.” Money was a term reserved to mean a unit of circulating medium of exchange whereas the “Bills of Credit” were borrowed for a public expenditure following in the European tradition.

Of course, inflation had long since been a problem within the Colonies even before paper money came into general circulation. An example of this inflation can be seen by studying the official valuations of the coins in circulation at the time. Specifically, in 1645 Virginia had placed an official value on the Spanish dollar from 6 shillings, then down to 5sh and later back to 6sh when just in 1642 it had been circulating at the rate of 4sh. Inflation and the constant revaluation of silver Spanish dollars resulted in complaints from British merchants that culminated in the Act of Parliament in 1707 which effectively set a limit of 6sh as a maximum value that Spanish dollar could be used for in trade.

At first, paper money was generally being issued for war expenditures that came about as the result of King George’s War (1741-1748) and the French and Indian War (1754-1763). At times, the Crown itself virtually ordered the New England Colonies to cover the expenses of these wars by issuing paper money thereby avoiding the need to use gold and silver.

But during 1733, paper money began to be issued for such things as the building of courthouses, jails, lighthouses, harbors, forts and many other forms of public expenditures. In 1769, Pennsylvania issued paper money for the relief of the poor in Philadelphia.

The early part of colonial economic history began to take a much more volatile path with the invention of quasi-banks. The “loan office” was a scheme for economic manipulation as well as corruption. Commissioners supervising the loan offices were designated by the Colonial Assembly. Paper money was then issued and lent to private individuals who in turn placed their land or silver belongings up for collateral. The first loan office was set up in 1712 by South Carolina and by 1737, all other Colonies had followed with the exception of Georgia. Many loans were repayable with the notes, however, the interest was in some cases payable only in coin (hard currency). In 1741 Parliament required the immediate redemption of all such private paper money since the economy had become quite flooded with various forms of paper currency.

This period in history was filled with frequent financial panics. Of course the earliest recorded economic panic took place in 1683 but strangely enough, it was worldwide. In Japan the Prime Minister Hotta Masstoshi was assassinated and the shogun Sunayoshi was left with no able counselors. Inspired by Buddhism, Sunayoshi issued an edict that prohibited the killing of any living creature. He extended special protection and privileges to dogs and in the process sent the Japanese economy into ruin.

In 1683 Charles II compelled the City of London to surrender its charter and injected his own various aldermen and officers by royal appointment. Municipal charters throughout England were revoked in an effort to give the Tories control over municipal governments and their officers. Some defeated Whigs conspired to assassinate the king in what became known as the “Rye House” plot. The conspirators, and some falsely accused political adversaries, were put to death but the affair aided in creating a severe economic panic at the time.

Again speculation was bursting forth in many areas around the world. The first commodity futures trading actually had its humble beginnings not in Europe or America but in Japan as merchants banned together to trade rice receipts in 1690. Numerous financial panics followed the period in 1711, 1720, 1731 and in 1745. Utilizing the exchange rate for paper currency from the Massachusetts Colony, we can achieve some sense of how inflation was taking place in America which was contributing to wild speculations and the eventual economic panics.

Looking at the exchange rate for only Massachusetts, we find that accumulative inflation during this period had reached 752%. Paper money had been issued at an uncontrollable rate that had caused inflation to move in leaps and bounds.

In 1740, England had become so concerned with the depreciation of the American Colonial paper money, that each Colony was required to prepare a completely detailed report on the status of their currency. In 1749, England had actually sent sufficient English silver and copper coins to redeem the paper currency at the rate of 7.5 to 1 shilling sterling. This action aided in bringing about a temporary end to runaway inflation that had inflicted the Colonies in America. It was formalized by an act of Parliament that became effective September 29th, 1751 with the following provisions.

  1. No extensions, reissue or deferment in the redemption dates or amounts of existing paper money issues within the New England Colonies.
  2. No change in the legal tender status of existing issues.
  3. No relaxed enforcement or extensions of mortgage loans that were used to secure paper money issues.
  4. No new legal tender issues of any kind.
  5. No new issues of paper money for emergency expenses unless redeemable from taxes at face value plus legal interest to be paid within 5 years.
  6. No new issues of paper money for normal expenses unless it would be redeemable from taxes within 2 years.

The stringent controls on paper currency provided by the Act of Parliament in 1751 began to be ignored by the Colonial Assemblies. Each colony was ruled technically by a governor who had to sign the laws passed by the Assemblies. Growing resentment towards England and the Crown was building up over the 1751 Act which virtually transferred control of the currency to the Crown. Despite the fact that the Crown was just stepping into a situation that had become intolerable, this transfer of control to the Crown was not appreciated to put it mildly. The Colonial Assemblies had grown dependent upon their habit of printing money whenever they chose. Therefore, the Assemblies began to ignore the Act of 1751. When a Colonial Governor would refuse to sign their decrees to issue more money, the Assemblies were not without means of forcing him to comply. In New York, the Governor’s salary, which was paid by the Assembly, was simply not paid for over 1 year until he finally signed their bill allowing the Colony to issue more paper money. Other Colonies used the same tactics to win over their Colonial Governor’s approval for paper money issues.

 

Source: 1690 – 1774 A.D. The Dawn of Capitalism

Symbols Conceal and Reveal

Above are the official symbols of:

  1. Early symbol of Christianity merged with the Roman Empire
  2. Israeli Mossad
  3. The United Soviet Socialist Republics emblem
  4. The current United Nations emblem

It’s quite interesting how similar these all are to one another as it’s also interesting how each of these “wreathed” emblems represent domination.

Constantine converted to Christianity – in essence merging the Roman Empire with the faith. The wreath represents what’s embodied within will not be broken.

The Mossad’s moto is “By Deception, thou shalt do war”, which explains a lot when dignitaries world wide become frustrated with Israel’s clandestine false flags, espionage and terrorist attacks self-defense operations.

The USSR was the pinnacle of what started with the Bolshevik Revolution which overthrew the Czar (monarchy) in Russia in 1917. The Bolsheviks were funded with Wall Street mega-bankers bankrolls. This is a good example of how capitalism and communism are reliant upon one another to exist. If anyone calls into question symbiosis between Capitalism and Communism – take a look at World War 2 – with the United States and the USSR entering into an alliance to defeat National Socialist Germany.

And finally we have the United Nations. The mechanism created by the Rothschild-led international central banking consortium to bring nations to the table in order to establish a one world system of governance, with people becoming a one world culture (globalism), under a uniform ideological framework called Communitarianism – which is explicitly a Capitalism/Communism hybrid.

And this hybrid is being brought about via the implementation of the UN Agenda 2030’s “Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)” . Stated very simply, the SDG targets are only attainable if the world as you know it was dramatically repurposed; societal, economic, political, financial, educational, medicinal and on and on.

But the East India Trading Company wants those SDG targets hit. And the dynasty that owns the East India Trading Company happens to own the controlling interest in the world’s central banking octopus, they own the City of London, they possess the deed to Palestine (Mossad was a response) …

Now, through the UN’s partnership with the World Economic Forum (WEF) that was launched in June 2019, the WEF became tasked with the responsibility of making the SDG package a reality.

The battle plan to achieve the implementation of Agenda 2030’s SDG is called THE GREAT RESET.

And the Great Reset was publicly launched on June 3rd, 2020 amidst the depths of the worldwide Coronavirus (panic, misguidance and worst of all – decimation of the middle class and the economy in it’s entirety). This is all being done to drive people into the arms of the concept of Communitarianism.

They’ll use the Fourth Industrial Revolution as the guise to the most massively sophisticated and powerful surveillance and security apparatus ever imagined; complete with big data feeding artificial intelligence, enhancing deep machine learning – complete with drones, robots, biometrics-capturing video and audio systems…the Bank of International Settlements will be tasked with the ultimate rollout of a uniform, global digital currency that will be tethered to all existing currencies in circulation as of now (ultimately to consolidate and phase then out).

Climate Change will be the big one to frighten the people – the Americans – into thinking the Earth will blow the Fuck up if they do not abolish whiteness, relinquish their private property, abandon religious, medicinal, scholastic, economic, recreational, social and most absolutely of all POLITICAL values and beliefs, accept the concept of global citizenship… the UN, for the past ten years or so, has been interchangeably using the terms “economic migrant” and “refugee” . And they have officially declared economic migration a human right – and have meme’d poorly developed parts of the world as casualties of climate change and global warming.

Thus, migration is needed to heal the Earth. And pronoun rehabilitation camps. And dildo sanitizer.

Except for Israel.

HOW FAKE AND GAY IT ALL HAS BEEN.

From Medium: WE ARE ALL CIVILIAN WAR HOSTAGES OF THE GLOBAL CAPITAL — this is not a “pandemic”

WE ARE ALL CIVILIAN WAR HOSTAGES OF THE GLOBAL CAPITAL — this is not a “pandemic” on Medium.

https://ift.tt/3ptQk0r

So far, wars have served as an occasion for massive capital destruction — apparently Corona is now fulfilling the same purpose in a less violent way.

THE WAR SUBSTITUTE

“Capitalism carries war like a cloud the rain,” said the French social revolutionary Jean Jaurès. In busy times when many people already have almost everything they need, the market will eventually be saturated. Bad for the targeted growth rates of capital. In war, on the other hand, traders earn twice: first from destruction, then from rebuilding. Destroying capital to the extent desired would only bring about a really big war. But the atomic armament with the danger of the total extinction of mankind stands in the way. What to do? Corona could represent the desired solution for the capital faction: the greatest possible economic devastation, but a more manageable destruction of human life. Perhaps — one could conclude — we would have been spared Corona had there been no atomic bomb. Without the spread of nuclear weapons, the current corona campaign would have been neither possible nor necessary. That it is taking place is a civilizational advance. Sounds a little crazy? May be. But if you want to understand the world in crazy times, you should also examine trains of thought that may initially seem crazy. It may turn out that things can ultimately be explained with a solid old vulgar Marxist worldview. Capitalism cannot be had without war We live in a time in which the principle of capitalism rules the world almost down to the last corner, and down to the most private and intimate emotions of the people. I take this as a given and forego evidence — whoever does not share this premise will not enjoy the following either. The principle of capitalism is profit making. In other words: capital, in the form of money and possessions with a monetary value, must continuously be utilized in a way that leads to the increase of this very capital. That is the principle to which everything has to be subordinated, no matter what the cost, including the lives of millions of people. Their misery and death are not meant badly on the part of capital, but simply necessary for the realization of capital, or just collateral damage that is not so important. The valorisation of capital takes place in the organized production of goods and services that are not produced for their utility but for their profitability; for this purpose capital buys labor. Profit, as we have learned from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is based on the fact that labor, like all goods, is paid on average at its production price — that is, according to the amount of labor that is required to produce and produce it entertain — but in turn creates value that is greater. Capital appropriates this difference, the “surplus value”, quite legally: This is the profit of which, to their great regret, the individual capitals have to give up parts to the state, to lenders and so on. Today the situation has changed from the time of Marx and Engels; the increase of money or capital through purely fictitious money and speculative transactions — which already existed before capitalism — plays a considerably greater role today in relation to the “real” production of goods and services. The capital must be utilized and multiply in the process — if nothing is produced over long distances in this process, that obviously does not matter. Now, as we have known since Marx and Engels, capitalism is not conceivable without recurring crises. The production of goods and services — and even more so the fictitious economy of the capital and money markets — are not controlled on the basis of the probable needs of the people, but expanded until it is no longer possible. This situation occurs regularly when the produced goods and services are largely no longer for sale due to a lack of (purchasing power) demand (overproduction crisis) or when capital has increased so much that there are simply no more profitable investment opportunities (overaccumulation crisis). Capital that can no longer be used profitably — that is the GAU, the greatest accident that can be assumed for capitalism. These crises can only be overcome if capital is destroyed on a large scale.

The audience doesn’t usually notice that. On the surface, it is only about conquering foreign territories, raw materials and markets or making them dependent on one’s own capitalist nation. All of these war aims exist — and if successful they would supply the domestic capital of the warring nation with new profitable investment opportunities. But war is always infinitely expensive and it is the opposite of productivity; it destroys capital in large quantities in all participating countries. The belligerent state — the state with Marx understood as the executive committee of national capital — must of course be concerned with burdening the losses and the destruction of capital as much as possible on “the other”, that is to say on the war opponents, including the so-called common people in their own country. But parts of the local capital can (and should) perish in the war. There remain bankruptcies, ruins, land, production facilities, know-how that can be taken over cheaply by the victorious capital factions, at home and abroad. Then there is again room to roll up your sleeves and earn money on “reconstruction” — the surviving capital can multiply again unchecked, until the next bang. With the widespread use of nuclear weapons after the Second World War, the realization that wars can only be fought to a very limited extent has evidently gained acceptance. You can still raid countries on the periphery. A war against a nuclear-armed state would most likely lead to the fact that not all nuclear weapons of the enemy can be switched off even with the most superior weapon technology — and if only two or three bombs of the enemy are used, the “costs” of the war are also simply too high for the attacker. Whoever shoots first, dies second, is the logic of war in the age of nuclear weapons. Apart from that, after a “victorious” nuclear war one can hardly profitably acquire the rubble of capital and the markets of the defeated state: there is no profit to be made with an uninhabitable desert. What to do — without nuclear war? The recurring over-accumulation crises remain, but war as a solution to capital destruction is largely canceled. As I said, peripheral states such as Iraq or Libya or Grenada can still be invaded, but even that is of little use: the destruction of the economies of such countries hardly leaves any gaps in the world market that “Western” capital could profitably fill and the defeated states become failed states in which one does not want to invest capital. What is left there? Capitalism, punished for its downfall, is forced to find ways to destroy capital on a large scale without waging a major war. Sometimes, in dire straits, rescue approaches from unexpected directions, such as the implosion of socialism, which really no longer exists around 1989. There could be no end of loot without a “hot” war, and lots of new profitable investment opportunities opened up. It is bitter that, contrary to the divine order, parts of the booty did not go to “Western” capital, but to Russian oligarchs who now have their own capitalist nation-state with Vladimir Putin’s state apparatus; but at least. Only, that was 30 years ago and the effect has fizzled out. The over-accumulation crisis strikes again relentlessly. When it came to light in 2008 as the “financial crisis”, the states could still half-fill it with tons of invented money; As everyone knew, the crash was successfully delayed, but made worse for the future: the vast amounts of money that naturally ended up in large capital have inflated it even further — and there are no investment opportunities for all this capital. One expression of this is the fact that practically no interest has been paid on money since then; no individual capital would like to expand through borrowed money, because there are no longer any profitable investment opportunities, apart from pure speculation with real largely worthless securities. There must urgently be opportunities to destroy capital on a large scale, otherwise the world will end, because, from the perspective of capitalism and its prophets, the collapse of the capitalist system is of course identical with the end of the world. Little things, like the sudden deflagration of the DAX group Wirecard, destroy at most a few dozen billion euros or dollars — these are peanuts, that is not a solution.

THE CORONAVIRUS AS A SOLUTION

Whenever you think it doesn’t work anymore, a little light comes from somewhere, my grandmother’s tear-off calendar already knew — and was therefore more correct than Marx and Engels, who could not have dreamed that crisis capitalism would still exist 150 years later , and apparently more unchallenged than ever. And really, the little light brought enlightenment, appropriately at Christmas time, in Wuhan in China, although they don’t care about Christmas there. It was christened SARS-CoV-2. This new or at least hitherto unknown virus and the disease it caused in a relatively small proportion of infected people called Covid-19, which can be fatal for a few per thousand of infected people (similar to influenza), was not an invention and was not planned. In any case, assumptions about this do not seem convincing to me. But “Corona” was an unexpected opportunity, and after a certain period of hesitation and uncertainty, capitalism grabbed it by the head. In business as in politics, real success is always based on the fact that the actors do not simply work through their plans as precisely as possible — as business administration propagates — but that they can take on unexpected opportunities at any time. Which of course becomes easier if the opportunity could not be foreseen at the specific point in time, but one had already dealt with possible opportunities of this kind. If the opportunity really does come, it is not easily overlooked, and options for action that have already been considered or even practiced are available. There have been many scenarios, pandemic plans, and staff exercises at national and international level in recent years. The preferred story was essentially always the same: a new virus, preferably from China, mutated or jumped from wildlife to humans, is spreading rapidly around the world, causing severe and potentially fatal respiratory diseases. The story was obvious insofar as there have been influenza epidemics for more than a hundred years that follow this pattern. To be sure, mankind has got used to it; I didn’t even notice at the time that we in Germany had the most violent flu epidemic in a long time with — according to calculations by the Robert Koch Institute — around 25,100 deaths. But these epidemics have existed and will continue to exist in the future, and it makes sense to prepare for them. Totalitarian high-performance medicine In capitalism, however, the preparation for epidemics takes place according to capitalist rules. One of these is totalitarian high-performance medicine that does not deal with people or with health and the possibilities of their (re) production, but, increasingly specialized, with isolated disease units and their treatment and prevention using highly profitable products from the pharmaceutical and device industries in the context of profit-oriented hospital factories. Health policy, from the local hospital to the World Health Organization (WHO), is controlled by capitalist owners, “sponsors” or other influencers; As is well known, after the US exit, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is often associated with the vaccine industry, is now the largest financier of the WHO and thus only the most striking evidence of the multiple interests of the pharmaceutical and medical technology industries and those associated with them Medical researchers with the actions of the — formerly quite honorable — WHO. By the term “totalitarian” I mean the peculiarity that, unlike other capital groups, the medical-industrial complex does not have to limit itself to “offering” its goods and services to the public — and using all sorts of tricks to entice the public into “ voluntarily ”to buy). Instead, this medicine has saved the special authority and position of the medicine man from pre-capitalist times, who proclaims absolute truths and gives instructions to be followed.

Sometimes we are also tempted to consume medical services, such as consuming a new car or a new fitted kitchen; In contrast to car or kitchen appliance manufacturers, top medicine has the option, if necessary, of simply telling us what we — in the sense of the respective medical specialty and its prophets — now have to do and have ourselves done. And if any Pope happens to be the right figure in any of the numerous special disciplines of high-performance medicine for social and state processes taking place for completely different reasons, then Saint Christian Drosten believes that he can control the state and its apparatus regulated in the Infection Protection Act like the Holy Inquisition at the time the “secular arm” who did the dirty work of the executions. “Totalitarian” is the basic attitude of this ruthless special medicine, which considers itself justified to regulate everyone and everything in the possession of the highest truth. Whether the Drostens wield real power or are just the propaganda bastards in a play that is directed elsewhere is not yet said. For the representatives of top totalitarian medicine, a real, threatening, conceivable epidemic means fame and honor, research funding and industrial contracts and at least a feeling of considerable power and importance. It is understandable that some “leading virologists” tend to exaggerate in principle. SARS, MERS, EHEC, swine flu — the widespread extermination of mankind by nasty viruses is promised to us every few years, the audience almost began to get bored with the umpteenth remake of the same horror film. For a change, there was also BSE, it’s not always just the virologists who should get something from the matter. Behind the hubris of the virologists is the very factual business interests of the pharmaceutical industry, especially the vaccine manufacturers, who earn their money by scare-mongering stupidly and already know how to keep their panic professors happy. This time everything is different Despite the profitable tendency to exaggerate, previous “pandemics” have been limited. People were scared a lot, a lot of money was made with drugs and vaccines, but that’s it after a few weeks. Whether the drugs and vaccine doses that we all paid dearly were actually used or had to be destroyed is not so important either — the money had been collected, capital had increased, now life can go on, capitalism does not exist after all only from the pharmaceutical industry. And the scenarios, pandemic plans and exercises were not meant so seriously that one would have drawn serious consequences from them. A small district administrator from the Schleswig-Holstein province, whose heart belongs to disaster control, was “a bit shocked” because: “At a higher level, there was a transnational disaster control exercise in 2007, where the pandemic scenario was practically played out. It was about an influenza virus, but the analysis could have looked up many of the problems from the spring, for example with protective clothing for medical staff. I got the impression that these work results have fizzled out ineffectively ”(1).

The evaluation of the above mentioned exercise LUEKEX 2007 also showed that there is a lack of reliable knowledge as to whether and to what extent face masks effectively reduce the risk of infection in everyday situations. Corresponding research was urgently requested (2), but of course did not take place. They had more important things to do than research into preventive health protection in the terrible pandemics that were certainly threatening at any time. In 2020 everything was different. Once again one of the usual pandemics was found, the WHO could have caused some excitement, governments could have stored vast amounts of overpriced useless — and potentially even harmful — vaccination doses, the disease would have been around 8th place on the hit list of causes of death for a few weeks could climb, the audience would have passed the time with the new edition of the horror film — and after six months many would not have known what exactly this disease had been called in the spring or so. The world would have straightened out again until the next “pandemic”, which, given the current workings of the WHO, is guaranteed to be declared in five years at the latest. But this time, wherever, the insight emerged that a pandemic — a terrible disease threatening the whole world — could be a good substitute for the Third World War, which was no longer militarily feasible. “Insight” is perhaps an exaggeration; someone does not necessarily have to have rationally and consciously decided that now should be war. Social, i.e. historical and political-economic laws prevail in capitalism — just as in previous social formations — as a rule behind the backs of those involved. These must necessarily obey the laws, if punished for their downfall, but they do not have to know or understand them. It is enough for them to feel what needs to be done now. And that was felt: Big money had long been waiting for the next bang, which everyone knew (and not only felt) that it was inevitable. The tension grew. The disaster warning from the industry-controlled virology popes and the WHO fell on more fertile ground than usual: the expected disaster had finally arrived. There is something relieving and activating about this: a catastrophe that actually takes place opens up possibilities for action, one no longer has to stare like the rabbit at the snake that is expected at any time. In such a situation, one does not check whether the disaster warning appears to be correct, and a comparison with past, severely exaggerated reports of this kind does not come to mind: We trembled long before the expected bang, now it is finally here and we can do something. The thought that it might just be a fake bang or that only the Drostens of this world could have a bang would only bother us now.

LEARNING FROM CHINA

The fact that the alleged horror came from China was compounded. Western capital and its mass media have long been obsessed with the love-hate relationship with China: China is an up-and-coming competitor that is certainly trusted to overtake the “most powerful industrial nations” of the West; China is realizing a capitalism that seems to be far more successful than the “Western” variety, and at the same time makes it clear that it will not be subordinate to any Western domination; Irritatingly, China makes it clear that the bourgeois-democratic facade is not necessary for the successful development of a capitalist nation; So China would be the perfect mortal enemy — but at the same time China is an indispensable trade and economic partner of the most powerful western industrial capitals, which would hardly survive without the “China business”, whether they are called Apple or Volkswagen. China is our future. China is exciting. This China now considers a virus to be new and dangerous — and initially deals with it very calmly. Criminal carelessness, “our” mass media have to crow, millions will die because China ignores the virus and suppresses the warner. Then, no one knows why, China turned around and imposed drastic restrictions and bans. Criminal human rights violations, “our” mass media have to crow, something so terrible is fortunately completely unthinkable in western democracies. After that, China announced that the problem was as good as resolved, with the exception of some infections from foreign travelers. Then the thought arose: What the Chinese can do, we should be able to do as well. Now we should really hit it, it even seems to have helped. And all the cumbersome and expensive frippery with democracy and human rights actually disturbs business here rather than being useful to us. So, let’s get into battle: learning from China means learning to win. — If SARS-CoV-2 had not appeared in China, but in Argentina or Kenya, for example, then the “Western world” would have been interested in about as much as Ebola or less, since it is also considerably less dangerous than Ebola Pathogen. One can now speculate about whether someone “directed” and whether there are identifiable persons and (of course secret) committees who at a certain point in time decided to repurpose “Corona” for a major war. That doesn’t seem really important to me. It is certainly of historical interest to examine the people involved and concrete decision-making structures. But sometimes you get to so-called conspiracy theories too quickly. As screeching as the corona warriors and their mass media denounce every critic as “conspiracy theorists”, conspiracy theories sometimes seem almost sympathetic. But they have the problem that they personalize social or political-economic processes. They create the illusion: If this and that bad person had not pulled on this and that strings, we would have been spared all the misery. But it wouldn’t be. The constraints of the capitalist economy prevail largely independently of individual actors who can be identified by name. If they hadn’t acted, then others would have done it, a little earlier or a little later, in the same or a similar way. Petty-bourgeois intellectuals — like the author of these lines — tend to overestimate the power of individual heads — preferably their own. The fact that the actors are only responsible as character masks for the implementation of the silent compulsion of the circumstances and are largely interchangeable, of course, also offends one’s own conviction of one’s own uniqueness.

THE WAR IS PICKING UP SPEED

The governments of the leading western industrial nations did not all go into the corona war at the same time and with the same enthusiasm. Statesmen like Emmanuel Macron spoke of “war” at an early stage, while the administrations led by Boris Johnson and Donald Trump initially did not expect too much of the matter. But once a world war like this takes off, one cannot escape. The countries of the periphery followed anyway, with very few exotic exceptions — whether because of their religious orientation towards the example of the capitalist states of the first guard, or because of the usual discreet influence of Western advisors, investors, the World Bank and the IMF, WHO et cetera, that makes little difference in the result. A great war is never waged for one purpose alone. And the meaning of war in the capitalist economy, the destruction of capital — if possible exclusively at the expense of the “opponents” and one’s own lower classes — is not really suitable as an official war goal that could sweep away the bulk of the population. The population is not the problem, however; the Corona story is completely sufficient to create the necessary war mood, and the propaganda machine knows its craft. The individual warring powers each use the opportunity to advance their interests through the war. After the Trump administration was no longer able to prevent the USA from entering the war, it is now pursuing the goal of damaging China in order to avert the downfall of the USA — de facto, of course, of delaying at best. In the corona war, Germany believes that it is taking important steps towards realizing its geostrategic goals formulated by Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg in the “September program” in 1914: domination of a united Europe as a basis for reaching out to world power. That is why all war damage in one’s own country is poured in with vast amounts of invented money — except of course the damage to those who are not systemically relevant for the functioning of capitalism. According to the calculation, you will get away with it better than France, which after the departure of Great Britain is the only remaining competitor “on an equal footing” for supremacy in the European Union (EU). The other large economies within the EU, Italy and Spain are unlikely to recover after the end of the war and will fall back to the rank of marginalized countries that are dependent on Germany or France — such as Greece or Portugal. To make this process irreversible, it makes sense to extend the war with a “second wave”. The “big leap forward” made possible by the corona war to an economic and social order based entirely on electronic communication, in which every activity for business and the state can be completely saved, monitored, evaluated and blocked at any time, could definitely be expanded further ; who knows when such a good opportunity will come up again. In peacetime, all the political talk about “digitization” unfortunately does not lead to real visible progress.

THE BATTLE OF TWO LINES

On the other hand, there are also intra-capitalist contradictions in one’s own country: the cost of war increases with every week, and the requirement of capital destruction has largely already been fulfilled or, to put it positively: it is now time to distribute the booty and start a new orgy of capital utilization. That is why there are increasing voices that the state should no longer support all corona-damaged companies, but only those that are “viable”, that is, who will probably be among the war profiteers; and the bankruptcy applications suspended by the special corona law should no longer be delayed. The bankruptcy wave is intentional, in capitalist Newspeak it is called “structural adjustment”. And there are increasing voices in the large, system-bearing media that give facts and figures to consider on the subject of “Corona”, which you were not allowed to take note of a few weeks ago if you were not denounced as a Covidiot and right-wing aluminum hat conspiracy theorist wanted to. The situation is contradictory: not only for the domination of Europe and the world, but also for the short-term profit of the pharmaceutical industry, the IT and Internet economy — and, as a side effect, also the bicycle dealers and pizza services — an intensification of the war is desirable during the The auto industry, the petroleum industry and everything related to civil aviation are slowly running out of air. Obviously the decision as to whether and how the war should be continued is still contested (3); this naturally leads to dissonances and contradictions in the mass media, which no longer know exactly in which direction to direct their propaganda cannons. How could they? When in the spring of a few weeks in Germany the corona hysteria became the corona state, the infection protection law was converted into a general emergency law and basic civil rights were sacrificed to the state of emergency to an unbelievable and obviously unfounded extent, one was horrified and incredulous before this development: Why you do that? How can they? What’s next? Some felt reminded of 1933, when the total state was established in no time with the consent of the large majority of the population. It seems to me that the events of 2020 can be compared more with 1914 than suddenly — and in the perception of many contemporaries apparently: now finally — the world war “broke out”, which had been in the air for a long time (4). The interpretation of current events as a new form of (world) war in the atomic age makes a number of developments that initially appear absurd and unexpected become more understandable. “War” is a phenomenon that has been rooted in our culture for thousands of years. The idea of “war” is not only passed on in the social consciousness, but at least as strongly in the collective subconscious. This kind of thing does not go away just because there has not been a war in Germany or on its borders for 75 years — a situation that has been steadfastly worked on since 1990, but that’s another story. “War” means an alternative reality: other laws, social rules and morals apply, the entire system of coordinates into which human activity fits is different in “war”. Self-evident and fundamental rules of social coexistence are no longer in force, “You shouldn’t kill” becomes “Kill!”. This reinterpretation of all moral or ethical ideas is not a problem — everything is different now, it’s war. When the war is over, the rules of civil social coexistence apply again; these are practically not affected at all, but of course they cannot apply during the “war” state of emergency. In a war, all members of the warring nation must stick together, cooperation, submission and willingness to make sacrifices are absolutely necessary — with regard to willingness to make sacrifices, there is of course an exception for members of the respective ruling class who prefer to become war profiteers. Doubts about the war are not allowed, anyone who expresses even the slightest concern is a traitor to the country and should be ostracized. Everything must submit to war. Martial law applies.

THE HOUR OF THE EXECUTIVE

War is the hour of the executive. Parliament has to approve the war and to approve legal and financial conditions, after which it has done its duty and will no longer play a role until the end of the war. With the Infection Protection Act, a suitable enabling law was already in place for the corona war. With the addition of the “epidemic situation of national scope” (5), this was supplemented by the dictatorial powers that appeared to be necessary for the Federal Minister of Health, and supplementary budgets had to be approved. After that, the executive decides alone, from the generals in federal and state governments down to the smallest non-commissioned officer in the village public order office. War is a sublime experience for the military and, in the corona war, for the warring administrations. Anyone who had a time-consuming and stressful job in peacetime, with no room for a significant private life, is constantly watched and fought by the opposition and their own “party friends” who are just waiting for a mistake to bring down members of the government and to conquer their posts, and mostly without any noteworthy effects or successes (there are numerous former ministers at federal and state level who have left virtually no traces after several years in office) — in the (corona) war they suddenly have far-reaching options for action and can unrestrainedly into people’s lives rule into the most intimate details. “Intimate” is to be understood literally here. In Schleswig-Holstein, for example, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health are allowed to stipulate that both partners — more than two are forbidden anyway — must wear a mouth and nose cover during sexual intercourse and leave their address for the health department (6). There are supposed to be people who claim that the enjoyment of orgasm can be increased if it is accompanied by an almost fatal strangulation — whether the gentlemen had this in mind and wanted to encourage the shortness of breath during the sexual act or whether the envy of the health minister played a role, whose companion in life lives in New York and is therefore only allowed to communicate with him via the Internet during the corona war and who now wants to spoil sex for other people due to the lack of his own opportunity is not known. — So far, these rules only apply to paid sexual services; The gentlemen will also notice that the “risk of infection” with every sexual contact with people who do not belong to the same household is just as high as in a brothel. Anyone who can suddenly move so much and exercise so much power over other people’s lives can finally feel themselves and can finally believe that they are important. This intoxicating feeling of power arises not only when every provincial general can enact his own laws in his area of operation, and often quite different from the commander of the neighboring province; You are powerful and also relieved of the responsibility for the consequences of your own actions if you have to implement the surprising instructions of the highest army command unprepared, as the Kiel Prime Minister in the case of the school closings (7). In general, unlimited power is most beautiful when, in the event of going wrong, you can say afterwards that you only had to obey orders and that you are therefore not responsible for anything. The older ones among us remember how annoying the war stories of the old men were in our youth and how euphoric they told of their war time; the war victims, if they had survived, preferred to remain silent. The next generation of young people will learn to hate the transfigured faces with which their grandparents’ generation, today’s decision-makers, will rant about their contribution to saving humanity through the corona war, while the young people will patch up the pieces of the war and the costs over decades has to pay off.

At the beginning of the First World War, there was the famous saying of Kaiser Wilhelm II: “I don’t know any parties anymore, I only know Germans.” Even in the Corona War, there are no more parties. In the provinces it looks like the locally responsible member of the Bundestag of the Greens, together with her colleagues from the CDU and SPD and her colleague from the Left, publishes a press release (8) in which she calls on the population to obey: “We expressly encourage you to find out more about the coronavirus from the Federal Ministry of Health or the Robert Koch Institute. Rumors or information from dubious sources should not be taken into account. “ The analogy to Kaiser Wilhelm’s war also makes it easier to understand a phenomenon that has plunged many people into perplexity and despair: the practically total absence of left opposition to the corona campaign, the complete swinging of left organizations and publications and almost all of the left or left-liberal intelligentsia on the line a war that should obviously have been rejected. In 1914, “the Left” was practically identical to Social Democracy, which for its part was a very large movement that was broad in terms of content and organization. The basic social democratic knowledge of the prewar period included internationalism, anti-militarism and the awareness that the hostile antagonism was between the working class of all countries on the one hand and the various national bourgeoisies on the other, not between the working class of Germany and the working class of France and so on. With the beginning of the war everything was forgotten, Karl Liebknecht was alone in the SPD parliamentary group with his rejection of war credits. The left was, then as now, fixated on the state in its political ideas and demands, and its functionaries secretly or openly strive for little posts in the state apparatus. Socialism, the lofty goal, turned out to be the mere desire for social democracy in the “revolution” of 1918 to replace the monarchist and bourgeois government officials with social democratic comrades without even attempting to make substantial changes in the state and society. The state had shown the left through the socialist laws what it thought of it, but the social democracy steadfastly and increasingly believed in this very state, despite all verbal radical omissions. It is probably the same today: If the state declares a state of war, declaring itself and its people to be in dire need, then this left cannot stand aside, but must put aside all criticism and go to war with them. Criticism of the machinations of the pharmaceutical industry and the medicine that is dependent on it, criticism of the constant restriction of basic democratic rights and the expansion of state surveillance, etc., all of which are basic components of left-wing identity, must be put on hold at the hour of greatest need for the state. And if the state declares the hour of greatest need, then critical questions about the justification of this declaration of war would only be treason. In the corona war, with the complete failure of the left, we are actually only experiencing one phenomenon that we have known for more than 100 years and whose return was to be expected. It would be interesting to investigate (but exceeds my historical knowledge) whether the failure of the left in the war in 1918 and in the following years did not contribute to driving dissatisfied and disoriented sections of the population into the arms of right-wing groups, such as right-wing radicals and fascist groups today try, not without success, to gain ground in the spontaneous opposition to the corona war and to thrust into the vacuum left by the failure of the left. Intellectuals at war The same applies to left-wing liberal intellectuals. Their ancestors, the academic youth of 1914, were mostly not “left”, but had pursued equally enthusiastic and utopian ideas in the youth movement as the students of the 68s and 1970s. In 1914 they were thrilled that there was finally war. In contrast to today, students and high school students, sometimes class by class, volunteered for the front and died quickly as inexperienced soldiers. Today, the left-liberal intelligentsia is less shaped by students in their youthful exuberance, but by established academic middle class. They limit themselves to propaganda and prefer to leave the disadvantages of the war to the lower classes.

The talk about solidarity, reason and humanity, which is allegedly shown by wearing muzzles and complying with the most absurd corona rules, is just as broadcast-conscious and mendacious as the enthusiasm for war in 1914, but homeschooling for the child in their own children’s room with their own computer is quite comfortable, and on weekends you drive to the weekend house in the country, where there are no masks. The sacrifices have to be made by the others who sit unemployed with three children in their small social flat in the skyscraper and are not allowed to send the little ones to kindergarten or even to the playground. While the war volunteers with higher education in 1914 ultimately contributed to plunging their own people into misery and misery, which they supposedly had to protect from the evil enemy, their descendants today support the terror against the ancients, who as victims of the as “Solidarity” declared campaign of the corona warriors in their homes were taken into solitary confinement, without daily structure and without social contacts, without reasonable medical care, without hope and with no prospect of an early end to the oppression, in the case of lack of insight — for example because of dementia — medication sedated or restrained in bed with judicial authorization. The repugnance and mendacity of the talk of “solidarity” and “protection of our elderly” can easily compete with the flagrant prose of the war transfiguration of 1914 and the following years. These left-wing war volunteers also make up the majority of the mainstream public and private media staff. However, a special people gathers here. They became journalists when they were young, out of pursuit of clarification and spreading the truth — an honorable motive. The mute constraint of circumstances has taught them that with these lofty goals you usually get nothing, especially not a full-time, well-paid editor. With criticism and clarification — even in the late-night program or in the feuilleton — you can only get away with it if you were one of the first to have the right nose for the topic “in the air” and is therefore graciously accepted by the editorial board. Most of them have only learned to follow every emerging topic as the second, third, umpteenth infusion; so your journalistic B-goods just barely remain for sale. They can be dispensed with at any time during the next reorganization or publishing merger. This situation cannot really be endured, because these people are usually not stupid enough to simply completely ignore the contradiction between claim and daily reality. Endurance takes strength and alcohol. Since they do not drink lukewarm Doppelkorn but expensive Italian red wine, they do not consider themselves to be alcoholics. If you suddenly turn these people into war correspondents, they blossom. At last they can get involved and do missionary work unchecked, play a leading role in the salvation of humanity or their own people — emerging doubts about the meaningfulness of the military mission would only have a disruptive effect. Under these circumstances, the step from investigative journalism to embedded journalism is only small. The feeling, which can only be suppressed with difficulty, that something is wrong with this war and that one is actually only being abused, turns into an all the more intense hatred of all who dare to contradict or even dare to ask critically. The hateful character assassination of all critics of the corona campaign is psychologically necessary to kill any sense that the critics may be right on one point or another and that you yourself have finally become a traitor to your own ideals. If they didn’t do so much damage, you might feel sorry for the Corona war correspondents. Collateral damage The corona war comes — and this is new — without targeted mass killing. However, as in every great war, there is a huge number of deaths that are recorded as collateral damage. But that is part of the war and is no reason to forego war. Nobody cares that dozens, if not hundreds of millions of people will also starve to death as a result of the corona campaign this year and the next. The fact that hundreds of thousands will die prematurely because of the extensive collapse of medical care in the periphery is of no further interest. The destruction of these human lives is not directly intended — that the corona war was invented to reduce the world’s population, I believe is a rumor.

But it is true: These people are not systemically relevant to capitalism. The preservation of their lives therefore naturally plays no role in a war that is supposed to be waged to save every single old man and woman. The situation is somewhat different with the economic collapse of the countries on the periphery: here, collateral damage observed with a shrug of shoulders is mixed with deliberate calculation. If you have been able to buy mineral resources, land and national companies for the proverbial apple and ’n egg, in the future these countries will be forced to sell themselves for the rotten apple alone and forego the egg. These are positive prospects for capital that could make a prolongation of the war appear useful. How is it all supposed to end? If the interpretation of the “corona measures” developed here as a qualitatively new form of world war without (nuclear) weapons is correct, then certain prognoses should be derived from it. The first question that arises is when the war will finally end. This can take a long time: the cultural pattern of “war” in the western world includes the historical phenomenon of the Thirty Years’ War. The military defense of Western values in the Hindu Kush is also not far removed from this time frame. The German Chancellor, who is known to be more prudent, announced early on that a “new normal” (with a muzzle obligation for everyone — wearing the mask replaces wearing the party badge of the non-partisan war party) is being sought, and it can be assumed that this formulation was not thoughtless. In other words, the German leadership is not interested in a short-term campaign, but — as one of the war aims — in a fundamental social transformation at home as well, and this takes time. It has already been explained above that the foreign war aims also make a longer war appear reasonable. In the first weeks of the corona campaign, with good will, the country’s political leadership could still be convinced that they actually believed in the Drosten pandemic, and the stated goal was to flatten the curve or avoid overloading the health care system. This goal was clearly achieved quickly. The actual war probably only began afterwards, and it is designed for the long term: the pandemic will last until a vaccine is available, it has now been announced, which means that the war is planned to last several years. For propaganda reasons, of course, the availability of a vaccine had to be predicted for the foreseeable near future, here for spring 2021, which would have meant a war that would have lasted one year; more could not be expected of the audience. Of course, everyone knew that developing and approving a reliable vaccine against a novel infection usually takes more than ten years than three years, is extremely difficult for human coronaviruses, and has not been achieved in the case of the HIV virus for 35 years. In other words, if you no longer want to deny the federal government’s sanity at this stage, then there must have been plans to extend the campaign to several years at this point in time. The government will not abandon this perspective of its own accord. Another question is: How can and should this war end? In our imagination, the cultural pattern “war” has three possible outcomes: victory, defeat or armistice. A victory in this war would, according to the inherent logic of the war propaganda of the past few months, mean eradicating the virus. Obviously, this is impossible (9). Viruses of this kind do not disappear — but sometimes become more harmless over time due to various mutations — and the method of war also ensures that it cannot be won: By defining a positive result of a PCR test as “Covid-19 Infection “, years after the death of the last SARS-CoV-2, there would still be” proof “of constant” new infections “. The virus cannot be declared “eradicated”, the war cannot be won. Unfortunately, the virus cannot sign a “ceasefire” in principle, so this variant is also canceled. All that remains is defeat. In the face of inevitable defeat, belligerent parties can be driven to acts of desperation that far surpass the previous course of the war in senselessness and cruelty.

April and May 1945 provided terrifying examples of this. Not a good prospect. Now our consciousness, rooted in a long cultural tradition, knows not only the three possible — or in the case of the Corona war: actually impossible — war outcomes also irregular cases, such as the proverbial “Hornberger Shooting”: at some point the battle no longer takes place, the war creeps without knowing whether someone won and if so, who. This “impossible” outcome of the war is currently becoming apparent, for example, in the Afghanistan war. Would it also be conceivable for the corona war? That would, however, assume that the belligerents would have other things in mind in the course of time and therefore gradually abandon their campaign without being able to determine an exact time when the war ended. The war would have to lose its importance, almost imperceptibly. It can take a long time. Another, and even less pleasant, variant would bring the war to an end when a new, even worse — so this time perhaps: real and not just erupting in the fantasy of the drostens of this world — catastrophe attracts all attention and capacities and the corona war is dwarfed and gradually forgotten by it. Not a nice view either. Finally, in the good old Marxist tradition, a really positive perspective should also be considered: The peoples are fed up with the war and are using powerful mass actions, general strikes and so on to force its end to the bitter resistance of the ruling class, which with the end of the war is swept away by a revolution. It would be nice, but for the prophecy that the corona war could end like this, I am currently lacking historical optimism. It is easier to imagine the end of humanity these days than the end of capitalism. Another question is easier to answer: What should become of the immensely powerful armaments industry and the Bundeswehr if classic, conventional and nuclear armaments prove to be unnecessary in the Corona World War? Well, you don’t have to worry about the men — women are rarely to be found there. On the one hand, it has just been decided that up to 15,000 members of the armed forces will be deployed inside the corona war, making it clear that the new type of warfare also offers prospects for classic military apparatus. The imposition and enforcement of martial law and the use against one’s own population have never been alien to soldierly thinking. On the other hand, the strategists have been talking about cyber war as the future field of warfare for a number of years, and the booming IT industry, already largely militarily shaped in its origins, is happy to expand its existing close cooperation with the arms industry and the military. Military drones, armed or unarmed, are just one particularly striking example of the integration of heavy industry and IT in the arms business. The armaments industry will find ways to earn money from virtual warfare and to develop systems that optimize the instruments of the somewhat provisional corona war for future opportunities. And finally, in the virtual world war according to the corona pattern, the capital that is still tied up in the classic heavy industrial part of the armaments industry is not left in the rain: For regime change in countries on the periphery with insubordinate government, tanks and frigates will still be needed in 20 years.

THE NEXT WAR IS CANCELLED

The answer to the question, should the Corona war be over, when is the next event of this kind to be expected? WHO-style “pandemics” occur on average every three to five years and in all likelihood will continue to do so. The next corona war will be canceled for now. Because a big war with the destruction of relevant parts of capital — preferably abroad — is regularly necessary under capitalism, but the time intervals are considerably greater. In the next “pandemic”, the “reconstruction” so called by the European Union, ie the new phase of capital accumulation and expansion at the expense of the taxes to be paid by working people and falling social benefits, will not be over for a long time. One can therefore assume with a probability bordering on certainty that the Drosten will explain to us at the next pandemic why it is not so dangerous this time and any comparison with Covid-19 is inadmissible, although the next virus may actually cause significantly more people to die is called SARS-CoV-2. As far as the PCR tests are concerned, Drosten will remember what he already knew six years ago: “This method is so sensitive that it can detect a single genetic molecule of this virus. If, for example, such a pathogen scurries over the nasal mucous membrane of a nurse for a day without becoming ill or noticing anything, then it is suddenly a Mers case. Where previously terminally ill were reported, now suddenly mild cases and people who are actually very healthy are included in the reporting statistics ”(10). And where is the progress of civilization now? According to the thesis put forward for discussion here, the corona war is a new form of world war that can fulfill all the functions of a major war that are necessary for capitalism to survive, without using the weapons previously regarded as “military” and without direct (!) Killing to be consciously planned and implemented by people. This new type of warfare converges with the forms of cyber war and “hybrid warfare” that have been discussed and increasingly practiced in the military apparatuses of the leading countries for years, so it is not really new in all aspects. The progress now consists in the fact that, even without the abolition of capitalism — which, thank God, does not seem to be in the queue — it will in any case be possible to avoid the final big bang of the atomic world war. Nuclear war cannot be ruled out, but at least it is no longer inevitable if capitalism is retained. The same applies to the slaughter of millions of people in the metropolises. Conventional wars and the use of weapons of mass destruction have not disappeared from this planet, but will continue to take place in the struggle of the metropolises against the periphery and in the proxy wars between countries on the periphery. As in so many other cases, this civilizational progress is by no means a cause for pure joy. But at least: under the given circumstances it is progress.

(1) Norddeutsche Rundschau, September 29, 2020, page 10. (2) “Already in the preparation for the exercise it became clear that there was a lack of detailed, scientifically sound knowledge regarding the benefit of barrier measures using mouth and nose protection (MNS) or masks for the general population. The implementation of corresponding epidemiological studies is indispensable for the further development of the corresponding recommendations. “, Federal Office for Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance, LÜKEX project group: Evaluation report of the third transnational crisis management exercise” LÜKEX 2007 “by the LÜKEX project group, as of April 15, 2008, page 46. (3) Chancellery Minister Helge Braun accordingly expected the meeting of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister — in months for the first time in person and not as a video conference — on October 14, 2020. a “historical debate”, see for example Norddeutsche Rundschau, October 15, 2020, page 15 ; the expected or hoped-for decision in the battle between the two lines did not materialize at this meeting.

(4) Friedrich Engels as early as 1887: “Eight to ten million soldiers will strangle each other and eat all of Europe as bare as never before has a swarm of locusts. The ravages of the Thirty Years’ War compressed into three to four years and spread over the whole continent; Famine, epidemics, general wilderness of armies and masses caused by acute distress; hopeless confusion of our artificial machinery in trade, industry and credit, ending in general bankruptcy; The collapse of the old states and their traditional state wisdom, so that all the crowns roll by the dozen over the pavement and nobody can find them who can pick them up … “, Marx / Engels, Werke MEW 21, page 350 following. (5) Law on the prevention and control of infectious diseases in humans (Infection Protection Act — IfSG) Paragraph 5. (6) State ordinance to combat the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (Corona Control Ordinance — CoronaBekämpfVO) of October 1, 2020, Section 9 Paragraph 2, Schleswig-Holstein. (7) Interview with Daniel Günther, including Norddeutsche Rundschau, August 28, 2020, page 3: “March 12 was decisive for me when we went to school and daycare during a long-planned meeting between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor — have notified closings. I couldn’t foresee that. But from then on I knew that we were in crisis mode and that governance would be very different from what I had experienced in the two and a half years before. “ (8) Dr. Ingrid Nestle (Greens), Cornelia Möhring (left), Michael von Abercron (CDU) and Ernst Dieter Rossmann (SPD): Joint appeal of the Bundestag members of the Pinneberg district, March 20, 2020, https://www.ingrid-nestle.de/press/joint-appell-der-bundestag-members-des-Kreis-Pinneberg /, last accessed October 25, 2020. (9) Incidentally, the (almost) complete eradication that is in principle possible with some types of viruses is sometimes a Pyrrhic victory — at the end of August 2020 the Africa Regional Certification Commission (ARCC) proudly announced the success of the smallpox vaccination campaign, which is now also being used in Africa Poliovirus is eradicated. Only: The successful eradication relates to the “wild” polio — vaccination must continue, because now there is “the persistent threat of polio from the vaccine,” said WHO Director General for the Africa Region, Matshidiso Moeti. Outbreaks of mutated vaccine viruses, the “circulating vaccine derived polio virus (cVDPV)”, are currently occurring in underimmunized communities in sixteen countries, according to: Dr. med. Mabuse №247, September / October 2020, page 8. (10) Kutter, Susanne (Interview): Virologist Drosten in conversation 2014, “The body is constantly attacked by viruses”, Wirtschaftswoche May 16, 2014, (quoted from https://www.wiwo.de/technologie/forschung/virologe-drosten-im-versraech-2014-der-körper-iststaendig-von-viruses-attacked/9903228-all.html, last accessed on October 25, 2020.