Theme: Deception

The capitalism < — > socialism <—> communism debate has always been one framed by the jewish counter enlightenment. (It used to be referred to as ‘a jewish question’.) In the west, we have always held that the decision is only between rule of law under natural law which creates markets by necessity, or rule by arbitrary discretion which reduces markets by necessity. In history, in general, the natural nobility and aristocracy determined the use of taxes for the production of commons – in no small part because common people were often little more than semi-domesticated (superstitious) animals. The change from knights to riflemen, then from agrarianism to industrialism, altered the demand for influence over the commons such that far more people were participating in the market economy rather than the subsistence economy. and the emergent middle class wanted to direct proceeds to increasing markets, rather than territorial expansion of ‘aesthetic’ commons. Furthermore, once entered into the market common people were less and less ‘barely domesticated (superstitious) animals’. An american doesn’t really know what he is saying when he is dedicated to the constitution as if it is a sacred text, but he intuits it. And that is that western man – at least the aristocracy that until 1960 we all sought to aspire to imitate – has sought rule of law from which markets spread. And that commons should be produced by those contributing to its costs. And that the monarchy is welcome to spend its earnings as it wishes on commons or not. The ruling classes held more influence in french, less influence in german, and far less influence in english nations. And no one can rule the italians – even themselves. We reveled in the Italian aesthetic enlightenment. We all felt the vast shudder of the english enlightenment, more so the french counter-englightenment, more so the german counter enlightenment, and much more so the jewish counter enlightenment (marx, boas, freud), and its attempted fulfillment as the russian counter-enlightement (the USSR), – and since 1960’s the new French counter-enlightenment (postmodernism), and now the american left’s counter-enlightenment. Like all technologies, the counter enlightenment technologies all built upon one another, with outright lying (postmodernism) the replacement for supernatural lying. So. I argue, often, and for six to eight years now, that each people and each class of people requires an economic system suitable to their abilities. And that what we call a ‘mixed’ economy would be better termed a ‘hierarchical’ economy. Where just as in the past(present) we had(have) wild beasts (prisoners), slaves (soldiers), serfs(the majority of the underclasses), freemen (the majority laboring and working classes), citizens (the entrepreneurial and financial classes), Priests (the state, academy, media complex), Nobility (those few hundred very persistently wealthy inter-generational families) and Aristocracy (those few inter generational families that consistently produce warriors for the military). So I don’t see much in the 18th-21st century that tells me anything other than a series of attempts to impose a MONOPOLY economy of false equality on a hierarchy of people with different abilities each requiring a different economy to participate in. SO the future, in my mind, will consist, as it always has consisted, of a hierarchy of economies, that suit the needs of peoples. Will capitalism play out? Capitalism as we mean it, requires a mean of the distribution of talents above 105, if not above 110. Until we can cull enough of the lower classes again, so that the capitalist classes can carry the underclasses and the working classes, then I do not see how capitalism as we mean it (as that jewish extreme) can survive. However, i do see consumer capitalism remaining the dominant force in human affairs until we see some large enough leap in technology that a small number can organize the provision of consumption for all the rest. And if that happens we will return to slavery not liberty.