Can Economics save Society? My answer to that question, for years, has been, and still should be, No. I have maintained, and still would, that our modern world’s insistence that economics and the class who control it, is the most important thing, the expression of a society’s value as a society, is wrong, and a sure sign of degeneration. But I am coming to see that the path to fixing the problem, to restoring the of the functions above that of the merchant class, to again let leaders lead and let sellers sell, is indeed economic. That is, the destructive force of and interest capitalism which is now at the root of the Western, and hence the world economies, is not undeniable or ineradicable, and its elimination may be the last remaining hope of saving on the brink of collapse. Whether it is too late is another question, as is whether we would be able to resist the massive forces which would be, will be, ARE marshalled on a regular basis in its defence. But before we address those seeming insurmountable problems, we need to address the basic issue.
First to clarify why I have taken issue, in the past, with addressing this problem head on. From the nineteenth century on, or at least since the fall of the empires which had ruled the world and were fading, the main forces which appear on the world stage are economic. Specifically, Communism vs Capitalism. Both seek to rule the world through money, and assert that how we handle money and the economy is the most important thing. This asserts and maintains the primary of the merchant class -the Vaisyas, in the Hindu scheme of things – above the Priest Kings, the Brahmins, and the Warriors, the Ksatriyas. These three functions are first and best expressed perhaps by Georges Dumezil, but in fact appear in all traditional analyses of society – for our own, review the Lay of Rig. You can argue, with Guenon vs. Evola, as to the proper ordering of the Priest vs. Warrior classes, but I think any traditionalist thinker would tell you that the third class, the merchant class, the “middle class” in our modern (twentieth-century, I mean) thinking, should not dominate, and where it does, there inevitably follows materialism and decadence.
Not to belabor the matter here, but for those unfamiliar with the teaching of the three functions, those in society who do not fit into the above three categories are Sudras – unskilled laborers; and below them, those who have no function in society whatsoever and are its outlyers, outlaws and dependents. A Traditionalist looking at the decay of the modern world will tell you that we have fallen from a period where either the Priests or Warriors ruled society, to one where the merchants rule. Looking at world Communism on the horizon from the viewpoint of the twentieth century, it appeared that a fourth stage of collapse loomed – the domination of the Sudra, which leads inevitably to total collapse, and out of anarchy, totalitarianism. From my present viewpoint, there are alternatives to this theory, but that’s not really the subject here.
Before the modern era, Kings ruled. In the modern era, merchants took over, destroyed the empires of the Kings, and ruled through the market. Capitalism vs Communism is an argument between merchants and the State over who controls the money, seemingly. But in truth, in Communism as manifest, it has always been the ones who were merchants who emerge from beneath to rule the State, so nothing changes. Looks at modern America. Republicans – naked advocates of Daddy Warbucks – vs. Democrats, Socialists since the time of Roosevelt, proponents of economic and cultural Marxism who champion the overthrow of the State by the former untouchables, who are more easily controlled by the same money interests as support the Republicans. It has seemed to me that the only answer is the re-ascendance of the Priest or Warrior classes, or no matter who holds power, by the primacy of the moral, spiritual and welfare of the actual Folk of a nation rather than the interest of those who suck its blood by exploiting it financially. I have thus held no hope in any economic solution to our current crises of existence, and have morosely contemplated the collapse of the entire system as the only way to clear the ground for something new to arise, which would not be based on money and the greedy enrichment of the few, but on the welfare and positive identity of the people as a whole.
It now appears to me that one simple thing, which would change everything, could still seize the ship of State, whose holds are already rapidly filling with ocean water, and set it upright, so that we may pump the bilges and resume sailing, albeit with a lot of work to do. That thing would be abolition of usury, the elimination of interest capital, and the exile of its practitioners. This would mean the elimination of the private Central Banks and of an economy based on debt. It would mean the instant elimination and refutation of the so-called National Debt, instant freedom from interest slavery for millions, and the reform of social welfare programs from siphons of wealth and institutionalized promotions of the least productive elements of society over the most productive, to fonts of economic value produced by labor. For in the new society, all Capital would come from labor. Sounds like Marx, right? But Marx did not mean what he said, for he refused to eliminate interest. And Marx wrote only a smokescreen, a fake socialism, for he wrote not out of any interest in the benefit of society, but out of hate and for the sole purpose of promoting social revolution. Marx wrote to overturn society so that its lower elements would replace those who gave it strength and existence. Marxism is not true socialism, and to spread the knowledge and understanding of this difference must be the first task of anyone desiring to fix the current sad state of society by addressing its economics.
Obviously, the task is not simple, and anyone who contemplates it is best cautioned to observe the fate of anyone who has tried in the modern era to replace the private Central Banks with National ones. View the struggles of Andrew Jackson, if you like, but most especially look at National Socialist Germany beginning in 1933, and look at the fates of the countries who have tried it in modern times. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. All have been overthrown by the military might of nations who are owned and run by the Central Banks. What remains? Cuba, North Korea, Syria? The intention of the World Power toward Syria could not be more obvious; it appears that Cuba is to be co-opted, and who really knows what goes on in North Korea? For worse, or for better?
And when I say Marxism is not true Socialism, I may be throwing you a red herring, for defining a constructive Socialism would seem to be the least of our worries. We see that Communism has failed and always will fail, so that the tired old Marxist line does not appeal to many; the follower of Bernie Sanders are mostly very young. And what currently passes for Socialism in the guise of Marxism is in the hands of the same World Power as governs Capitalism, so that the two only pretend to quarrel over the World. Just as the Democrat and Republicans, the left and right hands of the Beast in America, only pretend to quarrel and have in the last few months shown that they will unite in the face of any real threat to their hegemony, Capitalism and Communism united in the 1930’s to face the only real threat to their world dominance when it arose in Germany. The true story of World War II is not found in the lies of the pseudo-history written by the victors, the cheaters, the world destroyers. World War II was not a war in Europe, it was a war on Europe, instituted by World Banking Power from its headquarters in the US and in coordination with its satellite offices in London and Moscow. This is not the place for the true story; but I strongly recommend this book for its uniquely insightful views on the strength of the German economy and why it had to be destroyed.
It would be more relevant to recommend the works of Gottfried Feder, the German economist whose discernment of the problem of usury or interest capital, as opposed to labor capital, goes to the heart of the problem. Marx was correct insofar as his analysis that the source of all economic value is labor; it was his narrow definition of labor, as he was blinded by his hatred of the managerial classes, as well as his lack of insight or more likely willingness to see the problem of interest, which led him to concoct a puerile economic system based on idealism and hatred. Because I think for Marx economics was always secondary, a means to an end; his real goal was class warfare and continual social revolution, and his economics merely the carrier for his real disease. Feder and his brother economists, on the other hand – and I am no thorough educator on economics and economists – gave us a system that is proven to work, as it worked in Germany between 1933 and 1939, an economics miracle. Until the World Power was so threatened that it made use of all the resources of the World to destroy the last defenders of Europe and manifest their own power absolutely.
We face today the end of the old system, which trundles down the hill toward its own inevitable destruction. For the purveyors of the usury economy have nothing positive to contribute, and in destroying the world that others, not so stricken by their disease, have built in centuries past, they destroy themselves and their interest capital along with it. So it is in the ashes when we rebuild – or when our descendants rebuild, for it is a thing which may take generations, depending on the degree of the collapse and destruction – it is necessary that we build a society built without the intrinsic bondage of interest capital. This will keep the demons out, I believe.
I reflect that the arise of the Jewish banking system, for that is in its essence what it is, lay, in our modern world, in the banning of interest usury by the early Christians, and their allocation of this function to the Jews, which led them to amass the wealth that arose time and time again, and persists to this day. The percentage of Shabbos Goy who work within their structure proves the rule. And I wonder what was the source of that ban. Was it some inherent distrust or suspicion in the blood of the European Christians, as opposed to the Semites? I do not think it was this simple, for I suspect we will find if the genetics are all sorted out that the lines are not drawn so clearly. Or was it some seed planted in Christianity itself by its concoctors? For Christianity was never more than a virus designed to eat Europe and destroy it, to deliver it into the hands of its devisers, which are not the simple Jews but the powers behind the disease.
I fear that in the limited length which I am willing to allocate to this article, I draw with too broad a brush, and leave both the support for my arguments and their implications, as well as their historical context, to future writings and to the reader’s own investigation. And I am no master economist, but rather I see it as my job to lay bare the essence of the problem. Even today’s modern world, I believe, could be “saved” by rooting out and destroying the demon at its core, which is usury. But that would be to rip out the spine of this modern society, and I do believe that it would kill the organism. It is dying anyway. And it may be that the best thing for the planet, and for humans, if they are fated to survive as a species the death of the collective Frankenstein that they have become, and to arise in a new form to slay the dragon of the eusocial species that man becomes without his divine blood and heart, is for us to let that horrid beast die as soon as possible. But someone must pass a warning to the sons of man, that they might rebuild a better world; and if it is to a different species that I must speak, then my speech fails.