The current war on capitalism is nothing new. Its origins lie in the European Enlightenment before there was a United States of America. Enlightenment ideals informed the Founders and, to a great extent, shaped the nation’s beginnings. The struggle between those ideals and the practical reality of free men in a rough and tumble land have shaped the nation’s history. The Founder’s fingerprints were all over the Federalist period but, what has become of the capitalism – forged in reality and hardened in blood and sweat – that they designed with those hands? It is in peril from the PLDC – the political decendents of Enlightenment idealists.
“Fast forward to the 21st Century. What if the federal stimulus program discussed earlier were designed to facilitate the aforementioned wealth transferal, not to the downtrodden but to modern, exploitive, morally bankrupt corporate interests? Given the ideological pedigree of several of the significant parties involved, establishing the motive for such a radical agenda is not so difficult.
One need look no further than Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to discern intimations of a revolutionary spirit that can be traced back to the Enlightenment. During a commencement address at the north campus of Miami Dade College, Pelosi invoked the phrase Novus Ordo Seclorum. This phrase, translated from the Latin as “new world order”, was also invoked by the adherents of the so-called “Promethean faith”. These adherents, who endeavored to create a “new reality,” included “early romantics, the young Marx and the Russians of Lenin’s time”.
“The new reality these socialist revolutionaries sought was radically secular and stridently simple. The ideal was not the balanced complexity of the new American federation, but the occult simplicity of its great seal: an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid over the words Novus Ordo Seclorum.
In search of primal, natural truths, revolutionaries looked back to pre-Christian antiquity – adopting pagan names like “Anaxagoras” Chaumette and “Anacharsis” Cloots, idealizing above all the semi-mythic Pythagoras as the model intellect-turned-revolutionary and the Pythagorean belief in prime numbers, geometric forms, and the higher harmonies of music.
To understand this “radically secular and stridently simple” reality sought by the early socialist revolutionaries, one must first understand the “Promethean faith” that underpinned their crusade. The Promethean faith held that science was the new lantern of salvation that would “lead men out of darkness into light”. Such a religious conviction constituted a form of secular Gnosticism, as is evidenced by its parallels with traditional Gnosticism’s doctrine of self-salvation.
Moreover, it also constituted vintage scientism, the belief that science should be universally imposed upon all fields of inquiry. [I can hear the whispers of ‘global warming’ as the root of all modern problems. Can’t you?] For the socialist revolutionaries, the universal imposition of science included the realm of governance. Hence, the emergence of scientific totalitarianism, exemplified by Marx’s “scientific socialism.”
In the scientifically regimented state, the citizen becomes little more than an amalgam of behavioral repertoires, whose every thought, feeling, and idea is the product of external stimuli. From the scientific vantage point, the populace’s motivations can be calculated and systematized, thereby allowing those few self-identified conditioners who are accountable to no moral master todevelop economic and technological stimuli that can produce the desired patterns of mass behavior. Hence, the PLDC!
Such a societal model is known as a Technocracy, which Frank Fischer defines as follows: “Technocracy, in classical political terms, refers to a system of governance in which technically trained experts rule by virtue of their specialized knowledge and position in dominant political and economic institutions”. According to Fischer, the Marxist concept of a planned economy has been strongly influenced by technocratic theory.
And where would these new American elites practice their social-science alchemy? In the academy, of course. Especially in the elite, private, eastern, ivy-covered universities – where Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and a large percentage of their principal advisors all matriculated and learned at the feet of the masters – and still do. [And, how could today’s students notbecome inculcated into this scientific philosophy of mass behavior controlled by big government with almost a 30:1 ratio of liberal to conservative faculty members in these institutions. That’s right. Thirty to one!]
“In practice, the technocratic concept of the administrative state has been most influential in the socialist world of planned economies. Given their emphasis on comprehensive economic and social planning, the technocratic theory is ready-made both to guide and to legitimate the centralized bureaucratic decision-making systems that direct most socialist regimes. Easily aligned with the ideas and techniques of scientific planning, particularly those shaped by Marxist economists, technocratic concepts have played an important role in the evolution of socialist theory and practice.
Thus, one could reasonably argue that the economic ideas of Marxist theoreticians have been heavily informed by the technocratic paradigm. In particular, a variation of the technocratically-inspired Marxist planned economy became entrenched in the United States during the 1930s under Franklin Roosevelt. [One could even say] that semiotic (the study of signs and symbols) indications of this entrenchment are discernible with the placement of the Great Seal on the one-dollar bill in 1935.
Such a socio-political Utopian vision was popularized and codified as revolutionary doctrine during the 18th Century Enlightenment. Several secret societies, chiefly Freemasonry, provided the incubators for this socio-political Utopian vision. Reiterating this contention, atheist scholar Conrad Goeringer states:
“[S]ecret societies and salons, lodges of the Freemasons and private reading clubs would become the focal points for the seditious [to the monarchies] and “impious” [to the Catholic Church] activists of the Enlightenment. Masonry required that novitiates pass through a series of degrees, accompanied by symbolic ritual, whereupon the secrets of the craft were gradually unfolded; the metaphors of masonry, the remaking of humanity as early masons had remade rough stone, soon served as a revolutionary allegory.”
This became the new model of revolutionary organization — lodges of brothers, all seeking to reconstruct within their own circle an “inner light” to radiate forth wisdom into the world, to “illuminate” the sagacity of the Enlightenment. So pervasive and appealing was this notion that even relatively conservative and respected members of society could entertain the prospect of a new Utopia, “or at least a social alternative to the ancien regime….”
Many of the [American] Founders were Freemasons, which motivated them to attempt to design a utopia in the newly freed United States. Fortunately, they were forced to combine this idealism with a strong dose of practicality when they designed a Constitution that had to satisfy the 2/3 of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention who were not Freemasons. Their collective wisdom was rewarded – at least until 1945.
After the Enlightenment reached its nadir with the bloody French Revolution, Masonic political activism seemed to decline and most lodges became relatively benign organizations. However, Dostoevsky’s “fire in the minds of men” still pervaded some strains of Freemasonry, as is evidenced by more subversive enclaves like the P2 Lodge in Italy. The Knights of the Golden Circle, which played a significant role in agitating the Civil War, could be another case in point.
Some vestiges of the revolutionary faith are also discernible with the addition of the Great Seal to the dollar by 32nd degree Freemason Henry Wallace – Franklin Roosevelt’s Vice-President in his third term – later to be revealed [at best] as a Soviet sympathizer. Researcher Michael Howard articulates the rationale underpinning Wallace’s introduction of the Great Seal:
“Wallace’s reasons for wanting to introduce the Great Seal onto the American currency were based on his belief that America was reaching a turning point in her history and that great spiritual changes were imminent. He believed that the 1930s represented a time when a great spiritual awakening was going to take place which would precede the creation of the one-world state.”
Step one would be for the United States to become more like Europe. [Sound familiar?]
Not surprisingly, comparisons between the contemporary Obama Administration and the FDR Administration abound. The cover of the Nov. 24, 2008 edition of Time Magazine featured Obama wearing FDR’s characteristic fedora and clenching FDR’s familiar cigarette holder in his teeth. The cover reads: “The New New Deal.” Such comparisons are not without substance. Examining Barrack Obama’s strategy for dealing with the bankruptcy of General Motors, Steven Malanga writes:
“But we are entering quite a different age right now, one in which the President of the United States and his hand-selected industrial overseers fire the chief executive of General Motors and chart the company’s next moves in order to preserve it. Conservative critics of the president have said that the government’s GM strategy is one of many examples of an America drifting toward socialism.”
But President Obama is not a socialist. If his agenda harked back to anything, it is to corporatism, the notion that elite groups of individuals molded together into committees or public-private boards can guide society and coordinate the economy from the top town and manage change by evolution, not revolution.
It is a turn-of-the 20th Century philosophy, updated for the dawn of the 21st Century, which positions itself as an antidote to the kind of messy capitalism that has transformed the Fortune 500 and every corner of our economy in the last half century [and create unimaginable wealth].
To do so, corporatism seeks to substitute the wisdom of the few for the hundreds of millions of individual actions and transactions of the many that set the direction of the economy from the bottom up.” (See Obama and the Reawakening of Corporatism)
While Malanga fails to identify corporatism as simply another variety of socialism, his assessment of the Obama Administration’s co-option of GM is absolutely correct. Moreover, his observations concerning the corporatist “notion that elite groups of individuals molded together into committees or public-private boards can guide society” underscores the technocratic character of Corporatism.
Again, the concept of a Technocracy originated with the socio-political Utopians of the Enlightenment, which, in turn, spawned all modern socialist revolutionary movements. This is the ideological heritage of those who people the [progressive-liberal-Democrat Cabal]. It is also the ideological heritage of Pelosi, who proudly invoked the phrase Novus Ordo Seclorum. That Obama’s stimulus bill was penned in Pelosi’s office in a rather backward-looking fashion suggests that a radical agenda is being [pursued].”
On yet another front, “Adrian Desmond and James Moore reveal that Darwin’s notions of progressive biological development cannot be so easily separated from social Darwinism:
“Social Darwinism is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start – ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.”
Thus, Darwin’s theory of evolution was not formulated in a vacuum. As is evidenced by the contents of his notebooks, Darwin already harbored a pre-existing Weltanschauung (German for “world view”) that he was attempting to scientifically dignify. This Weltanschauung embraced savage, unregulated competition and free trade, which are two pillars of modern monopolistic capitalism.
The contention that Darwin’s theory of progressive biological development was based entirely on unbiased observations is flatly bogus. Evolutionary theory was merely Darwin’s biological rationale for “competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality.”
Of equal interest are those parties that seem to have shaped Darwin’s Weltanschauung. One of Darwin’s frequent dinner guests was Harriet Martineau, a sociologist and Comtean (the philosophy of August Comte – positivism – Comte developed the positive philosophy in an attempt to remedy the social malaise of the French Revolution, calling for a new social doctrine based on the sciences). Her Poor Laws and Paupers Illustrated was recommended to Darwin by his sisters.
Martineau characterized the poor as the “gangrene of the state” and endorsed the genocidal Poor Law Amendment! Secret commission reports concerning this unpopular law were made available to Martineau by Lord Chancellor Henry Brougham. Poor Laws and Paupers Illustrated also did “… more to pave the way for the new Poor Law than all of the government propaganda”.
Martineau was a “darling of the Whigs,” a political party that promoted the Poor Law Amendment Bill. Martineau reiterated the Whigs’ platform, contending that the reforms being proffered by the bill would encourage self-sufficiency among the poor. This contention was patently bogus. By immediately thrusting unskilled paupers into a competitive job market, the Whigs were actually “decreasing labour costs and increasing profits”. Thus, one could convincingly argue that Martineau was merely the whore for corporate interests while dressed in Progressive clothes.
That Martineau’s corporate apologia influenced Darwin is highly likely. Her work drew the attention of Freemason Erasmus Darwin, Charles’ grandfather. Writing to Darwin during his Beagle voyage, his sisters revealed that: “Erasmus knows her [Martineau] & is a great admirer & everybody reads her little books & if you have a dull hour you can, and then throw them overboard, that they may not take up your precious room”. Erasmus Darwin would develop “every important idea that has since appeared in evolutionary theory”.
Moreover, Martineau subscribed to Malthus’ concept of carrying capacity, a myth that was central to Darwinian evolution. Astride Martineau’s “edifying homilies,” Malthus’ theoretical eschatology (the study of “end-things”) enjoyed widespread exposure. Martineau’s proselytizing was very effective. One pundit insisted that credence to Malthus’ demographic prognostications promised to do “more for the country (France) than all the Administrations since the Revolution”.
In fact, Darwinism and Malthusianism are still actively promulgated within orthodox academia because of the political and social capital that they afford for an elite few.
L. Fletcher Prouty elaborates: “We’re still operating under the principles of Haileybury College — Malthus and Darwin — even though both of them are ridiculous. It’s been proved today that our ability to produce food is 70 times greater per farmer than it was in the time of Malthus. It’s been proved that Darwin never did discover the origin of the species — no scientist has ever described the origin of any species. But those two doctrines were implanted by the East India Company’s mind-control techniques so thoroughly that we still believe them.”
“The logical bankruptcy of Malthusianism and Darwinism has never dissuaded the ruling class from vigorously promoting these two doctrines. Malthus’ Essay overlooked the role of human innovation in the enhancement of subsistence production methods. Still, Malthus concluded that society should adopt certain social policies to prevent the human population from growing disproportionately larger than the food supply.
Of course, these social policies were anything but humane. They stipulated the stultification of industrial and technological development in poor communities. With the inevitable depreciation of vital infrastructure, society’s “dysgenics” (dysfunctionals) would eventually be purged by the elements. According to Malthus, such sacrifice guaranteed a healthy society. Of course, the only parties that would profit from such a societal configuration were those who occupy the highest layers of socioeconomic strata [like the PLDC].
Likewise, Darwinism’s logical insolvency betrays the theory’s true function as a mechanism for social control. Darwinism has never demonstrated one instance of speciation. Moreover, the theory’s preoccupation with survival as the sole purpose of existence cannot account for human cultural institutions like art. However, Darwinism provided the pseudo-scientific rationale for genocide and oppression. These are two practices that elitists have refined and turned into virtual “arts.”
As the elite’s traditional theocratic power structures were gradually transmogrified into technocratic power structures, the oligarchs changed as well. No longer were they simply nobles whose “divine right to rule” was legitimized by the dominant ecclesiastical authorities. Now, they were Transnationalists and Internationalists whose primacy was dignified by the infallible principles of “Science.”
Technocracy became the new theocracy in Western civilization.
Together, the Transnationalists and Internationalists have advanced the cause of globalism, which Malachi Martin characterizes as “socio-political Darwinism”: “[T]he thing that seems to bind these two groups [Transnationalists and Internationalists] most closely in practical terms is that at heart, and philosophically speaking, both are socio-political Darwinists.”
In practical terms, both of these groups operate on the same working assumption Charles Darwin arbitrarily adopted to rationalize his feelings about mankind’s physical origins and history. If it worked so well for Darwin, they almost seem to say, why not expand the idea of orderly progress through natural evolution to include such socio-political arrangements as corporations and nations? In this view, the most useful of Darwin’s concepts is that of human existence as essentially a struggle in which the weakest perish, the fittest survive and the strongest flourish.
When applied to socio-political arrangements, this Darwinist process seems almost to dictate the Internationalist and Transnationalist one-world view of things. The continuing clash and contention in the world as it has been until now has resulted in a slow evolution of those who have survived from one stage of interdependent order to another. From time to time, natural “catastrophes” have intervened, forcing “nature” to take another path. But at each new stage, interdependence has become more important and more complex.
In theory, the greater the interdependence between groups, the higher the evolutionary stage, [and] the more the balance achieved between interdependent groups results in the common good. The view of the Internationalists and Transnationalists is that they are the ones who are equipped to bring mankind to the highest level of the sociopolitical evolution. Their effort is to bring together into one harmonious whole all those separate parts of our world that have not yet “evolved” into a natural cohesion for the common good.
According to noted historian Richard Hofstadter: “Sociopolitical Darwinians of both the Transnationalist and Internationalist ilk make the same sort of ‘speculative extrapolation’ that [Herbert] Spencer [English philosopher, biologist, anthropologist, sociologist, and prominent classical liberal political theorist of the Victorian era] made, extending the concept of evolution to ‘… such sociopolitical arrangements as corporations and nations.’
In fact, Spencer was warmly received by many [American] monopolistic capitalists, who were the precursors to the Transnationalists of today. For instance, Andrew Carnegie welcomed Spencer to a banquet in America in 1882. While there, Spencer openly expressed his affinity for the monopolist:
“However imperfect the appreciation of the guests for the niceties of Spencer’s thought, the banquet showed how popular he had become in the United States. When Spencer was on the dock, waiting for the ship to carry him back to England, he seized the hands of Carnegie and Youmans. “Here,” he cried to the reporters, “are my two best American friends.” For Spencer, it was a rare gesture of personal warmth; but more than this, it symbolized the harmony of the new science [Social Darwinism] with the outlook of a business civilization.”
In fact, Darwinian vernacular came to comprise Carnegie’s personal lexicon: “Not only in his published articles and books but also in his personal letters to business contemporaries, Carnegie makes frequent and easy allusions to the Social Darwinist credo. Phrases like “survival of the fittest,” “race improvement,” and “struggle for existence” came easily from his pen and presumably from his lips. He did see business as a great competitive struggle.”
The same held true for John D. Rockefeller, who maintained that: “…growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest … the working out of a law of nature…” Ironically, Rockefeller also declared: “Competition is a sin.” Evidently, Rockefeller accepted the Darwinian concept of “survival of the fittest” insofar as it could legitimize his own hegemony in business. Thus, Rockefeller financed the rise of communism, which eradicated even legitimate competition under the pretext of egalitarianism. Eustace Mullins, in his The Rockefeller Syndicate, explains the rationale underpinning Rockefeller’s support of communism:
“Although Communism, like other `isms,’ had originated with Marx’s association with the House of Rothschild, it enlisted the reverent support of John D. Rockefeller because he saw Communism for what it is, the ultimate monopoly, not only controlling the government, the monetary system and all property, but also a monopoly which, like the corporations it emulates, is self-perpetuating and eternal. It was the logical progression from his Standard Oil monopoly.”
While the internal contradictions of Rockefeller’s Weltanschauung reveal a slightly disingenuous adherence to the Darwinian conception of competition, other monopolists concluded that they were “naturally selected in the crucible of competition”. Thus, many of them implemented the same tactics employed by Rockefeller. Like Rockefeller, several monopolists financed communism’s rise in hopes of expunging their competitors from the marketplace and maintaining their evolutionary primacy.
Likewise, several monopolists financed the rise of fascism, specifically Hitlerian fascism. As was previously established, fascism is more succinctly categorized as corporatism, the marriage between Big Business and Big Government [think Krupp, Volkswagen, BMW, etc.]. Like communism, corporatism facilitates the formation of monopolies by regulating competitors out of business [by choosing winners and losers, usually with the assistance of political lobbyists]. Ultimately, both communism and fascism share a core dialectical commonality: evolutionary theory. Ian Taylor explains:
“However, Fascism or Marxism, right wing or left – all these are only ideological roads that lead to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, while the foundation for each of these roads is Darwin’s theory of evolution. Fascism is aligned with biological determinism and tends to emphasize the unequal struggle by which those inherently fittest [through evolutionary struggle shall rule. Marxism stresses social progress by stages of revolution, while at the same time it paradoxically emphasizes peace and equality. There should be no illusions; Hitler borrowed from Marx. The result is that both Fascism and Marxism finish at the same destiny – totalitarian rule by the elite.”
Of course, this whole discussion about the real desire of the PLDC for a “one-world order” based upon the Marxist model and its historical implementation by socialists, fascists and communists, flies in the face of the American model – a republic where, as legendary 20th Century Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis stated in a 1932 opinion, that the several sovereign States are designed and intended to be “laboratories of democracy” where best practices are perfected – not directed.
At this juncture, it is important to present a disclaimer lest more partisan audiences are led to surmise that a Republican presidency would dismantle the corporatist machinations of the Obama Administration. A cursory evaluation of the preceding regime thoroughly demolishes any such notions. The Republican White House of George W. Bush was dominated by neoconservatives.
“While they were consistently characterized as “anticommunists” and “pro-Americans,” the neoconservatives supported the idea of the New Deal. Irving Kristol, the “godfather of neo-conservatism,” states in his book Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, that neocons: “…accepted the New Deal in principle…” Later in his book, Kristol writes: “In a way, the symbol of the influence of neo-conservative thinking on the Republican Party was the fact that Ronald Reagan could praise Franklin D. Roosevelt as a great American president –- praise echoed by Newt Gingrich a dozen years later, when it is no longer so surprising.”
It is interesting to note that “godfather” Kristol was a Trotskyist in his youth. Kristol makes it clear that he is unrepentant: “I regard myself lucky to have been a young Trotskyist and I have not a single bitter memory”. The statist tradition of FDR’s Marxism was also carried on by the neocons, as is evidenced by Kristol’s own words: “Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable”, from Kristol’s “The Neo-Conservative Persuasion”.
Criticism of neo-conservative thought however, sometimes paints with too broad a brush. The neo-conservative-dominated Bush regime is accused of exhibiting the very same Darwinian propensities as its successor, citing preemptive warfare, the centerpiece of the neoconservatives’ foreign policy. According to Anisa Abd el Fattah, this doctrine is distinctly Darwinian in character:
“The idea of preventive wars, which we now call preemptive strikes, became popular during the rise of Social Darwinism and Eugenics, and led to the mass killings of those deemed weak, handicapped, poor and of inferior races throughout Asia, Europe, and the European colonies in Africa. The idea of perpetual war and disaster as a means by which to accelerate the evolution of the human species was also popular during that era, as it is now.”
The error here is that the criticism makes no room for one central and critical fact: “pre-emptive strikes” is the only sane strategy in the modern era of compressed time and distance. As Republican President George W. Bush explained early in the post 9/11 era, saying, in essence, that waiting until a declared enemy strikes you with a premeditated, preemptive and punishing strike that you knew was inevitable, is insane and there is no nefarious plan to accelerate the evolution of the human species, unless that is what you would call the saving of American and allied lives – which it very well might be.
Democrat President Obama, on the other hand, has abandoned the field to the enemy across the world and only uses preemptive drone strikes to keep criticism of his administration at the lowest level. But his presidency was devoted to preserving the survival of therichest – his political cronies.
In summary; during the first two-thirds of our history we were blessed with a laissez-faire government when it came to commerce. Of course, capitalist entrepreneurs took advantage of the poor – mainly newly arriving immigrants who came to pursue their dreams in industrial America. But, within a generation or two, the descendants of these immigrants had figured out how to get ahead in a capitalist system and were well on their way to the middle class. In fact, many of America’s “captains of industry” of the latter 19th Century began their journey as exploited immigrants.
Unfortunately, during the last one-third of our history, as we have seen, the Darwinian technocracy of “big government” has inserted itself into the free market capitalist system – picking winners and losers in a system of survival of the politically fittest. Of course, capitalist entrepreneurs still take advantage of the poor but, now there is no chance that they (the poor), or their descendants will ever get out of poverty because big government has a vested interest in keeping them dependent upon government largess in order to retain their votes.
We have seen how Socialism is a coercive system operated by naïve social-scientists. Communism is a dictatorial system operated by truly evil technocrats. Corporatism is a fascist system operated by arrogant, progressive/ liberal politicians. Capitalism is an equitable system operated by mostly decent people. Only one of these systems is constitutional. Which do you prefer? Which one is disappearing?
Next time: Invincible to Irrelevant