[Note for the Finnish Attorney General: Court Jews, Jewish bankers and Zionists do not represent all Jews. Many of the books linked and cited here are in fact written by Jews themselves. Nor do the elite Jews and Israel Lobby represent all Jews.]
Only a few historians have dared to study the Jewish Problem. But even these courageous individuals have suffered from the besetting sin of historians: Ignorance of economics and its laws. The worst example are the National Socialists who dared to critically study Jews but did so mainly from a sociobiological perspective. And when they did try to apply an economic perspective it was always the socialist version. After all, that is what National Socialists do. They combine sociobiology with socialist economics.
But what about economists and especially the libertarian economists who usually dare to study forbidden subjects including power relations between different ethnic groups? Have they not tried to see if the laws of economics, politics and especially monetary theory help to explain the history of the Jews? No. Evidently it is too “hot potato”. Better to concentrate on economics and only generally talk about liberty than endanger one’s career by talking about the Jews.
All this has led to a situation where there are hardly any critical studies of the Jewish problem combining the sociobiological and the economic perspective. This is unfortunate since the economic perspective is very powerful in the study of Jews. After all, their power has always depended on economic factors. Just as economics complements the sociobiological perspective so too the libertarian complements the National Socialist perspective. In fact, it can be even said that the libertarian perspective is at least as critical of the Jews as the National Socialist. Here again extremes meet. And in a very fruitful manner since it is relatively easy to create a scientific model where the laws of economics and politics interact with sociobiological laws and together predict the movement of the invisible hand and thus create “the laws of history”. Such a model would give us a tool to understand not only the grand strokes of history but also the role of Jews in the history of the West.
From the sociobiological perspective what drives human history is the law of biological reproduction. Under conditions of scarcity the need for reproduction leads to conflict and competition. Similarly from the economic perspective human history is driven by economic competition under scarcity. Both in sociobiology and economics the key words are scarcity and competition. It is competition that makes history almost predictable.
If four billion years ago an ET would have watched the continents and seas of earth from space he could easily have predicted world history up to the present time with over 95% certainty. He could even have predicted much of the modern history including the power of a diaspora nation (Jews) and the creation of U$Srael. This is how he would have done it:
I. Genes competing for reproduction created humans
Only those genes efficiently multiply which are “selfish” and “compete” for survival by cooperating with some other genes. These groups of genes create “gene cartels” or “gene machines” which first created plants, then animals and finally humans.
The next important link in the argument, one that Darwin himself laid stress on (although he was talking about animals and plants, not molecules) is competition. … Was there to be any end to the gradual improvement in the techniques and artifices used by the replicators to ensure their own continuation in the world? There would be plenty of time for improvement. What weird engines of self-preservation would the millennia bring forth? Four thousand million years on, what was to be the fate of the ancient replicators?
They did not die out, for they are past masters of the survival arts. But do not look for them floating loose in the sea; they gave up that cavalier freedom long ago. Now they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control.
They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.” (Richard Dawkins. The Selfish Gene. p. 20-21)
II. Climatic diversity created races
The existence of continents both in the Northern and Southern latitudes created great climatic diversity for humans. Those survived who gradually adapted to local conditions by evolving into different races. Negroids evolved in hot climate, Mongoloids in cold climate and Whites in the intermediate climate.
The more north the people went “Out of Africa,” the harder it was to get food, gain shelter, make clothes, and raise children. So the groups that evolved into today’s Whites and Orientals needed larger brains, more family stability, and a longer life. But building a bigger brain takes time and energy during a person’s development. So, these changes were balanced by slower rates of growth, lower levels of sex hormones, less aggression, and less sexual activity.
Why? Because Africa, Europe, and Asia had very different climates and geographies that called for different skills, resource usage, and lifestyles. Blacks evolved in a tropical climate which contrasted with the cooler one of Europe in which Whites evolved and even more so with the cold Arctic lands where Orientals evolved. Because intelligence increased the chances of survival in harsh winter environments, the groups that left Africa had to evolve greater intelligence and family stability. This called for larger brains, slower growth rates, lower hormone levels, less sexual potency, less aggression, and less impulsivity. Advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity all increased in the non-Africans. (Philippe J. Rushton. Race, Evolution and Behaviour. Life History Perspective. Charles Darwin Research Institute. p. 12.)
Evolution created not only biological but also psychological differences between races. The harsh Northern environment created the highest average IQ in Mongoloids but at the same time their gene pool became the smallest. This limits their number of geniuses compared to Whites who are biologically intermediate between Mongoloids and Negroids.
[S]ome peoples follow what I call a “genius strategy,” and that some peoples follow what I call an “ethnocentric strategy.”
If you’re evolved as East Asians are, with a very cold and very harsh but very stable climate, then you can’t develop a large gene pool because if you deviate too strongly from this particular evolution to the ecology, you’ll die. So, you end up with a small gene pool, and that means that you can’t really create geniuses very easily because geniuses are, in part, people with outlier high IQ. …
In a country like Britain, it’s a bit different because it was less harsh, historically. You have a more varied gene pool, and this allows you to produce geniuses, and they came up with amazing inventions. And then you can trade and then expand, and then your gene pool can become bigger and bigger, and then you can produce yet more geniuses and you can expand even more. (Edward Dutton interview)
III. Humans competing for reproduction created families and private property
Primitive communism of the hunter-gatherer bands led to overpopulation which lead both to warfare and the homesteading of new virgin land.
[Among hunter-gatherers] to the extent that goods were the results of some concerted or joint effort they were considered collective household goods. This applied most definitely to the means of sustenance: to the berries gathered and the game hunted as the result of some intratribal division of labor. Without doubt, then, collective property played a highly prominent role in hunter-gatherer societies, and it is because of this that the term “primitive communism” has been often employed to describe primitive, tribal economies: each individual contributed to the household income “according to his abilities,” and each received from the collective income “according to his needs” (as determined by the existing hierarchies within the group) — not quite unlike the “communism” in “modern” households. …Given that [in time of the early hunter-gatherers] the population size could not be maintained at a stationary level, only three alternatives existed for the steadily emerging “excess” population. One could fight over the limited food supplies, one could migrate, or one could invent and adopt a new, technologically advanced societal organization-mode that allowed for a larger population size to survive on the same, given territory. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. A Short History of Man. Progress and Decline. p. 48, 27)
The more harsher the environment and the more privatized society the more developed the members of the society became both intellectually and psychologically.
[U]nder agricultural conditions, where each household was responsible for its own production of consumer goods and off spring and there was no longer any “free riding” as under hunter-gatherer conditions, the natural inequality of man, and the corresponding social differentiation of and between more or less successful members of a tribe became increasingly and strikingly visible (in particular through the size of one’s land holdings). Consequently, the translation of economic (productive) success and status into reproductive success, i.e., the breeding of a comparatively larger number of surviving off spring by the economically successful, became even more direct and pronounced.
Further, this tendency of selecting for higher intelligence would be particularly pronounced under “harsh” external conditions. If the human environment is unchangingly constant and “mild”—as in the season-less tropics, where one day is like another year in and out—high or exceptional intelligence offers a lesser advantage than in an inhospitable environment with widely fluctuating seasonal variations. The more challenging the environment, the higher the premium placed on intelligence as a requirement of economic, and consequently reproductive, success. Hence, the growth of human intelligence would be most pronounced in harsher (historically, generally northern) regions of human habitation. (Ibid. p. 75)
IV. Topographic diversity created nations
Geographic barriers such as seas, mountains, rivers and deserts further increased biological and linguistic differences between human groups. This gave rise to clan based nations. Those high IQ White and Mongoloid nations which had relatively privatized societies with strong families and clans became conquerors. They headed to the South where they became the racial over-class. They soon developed large scale agriculture that created the River valley civilizations. Mongrelization of the over-class was long kept in check by migrations and periodic invasions from the North.
Most modern day Whites are to the greatest part, either direct or part descendants of a great wave of White peoples who swept into Europe from about 5000 BC till around 500 BC – these peoples, Nordic in terms of the White racial sub-groupings, had their original heartland in the region known today as central and southern Russia (hence Whites are often today called Caucasians – after the Caucasus mountains which are situated in the southern reaches of that country).
It is still unknown precisely what caused these Indo-European peoples to start migrating. Recent research indicates that the flooding of the Black Sea basin from the Mediterranean – established as a factual occurrence around 5600 BC – was the probable cause of the first great movements, and the time scale would certainly fit. …
With the aid of the horse, the first Indo-Europeans moved in all directions, disrupting the slow but steady pace of development everywhere they went. Large numbers settled in northern Europe, staying there till they later began again to move south; others moved off to the Middle and Near East, while others ventured west, crossing into Britain and Spain. (Arthur Kemp. March of the Titans. 1999, p. 53.)
V. Conquests created a statist cycle of the rise and fall of empires
Conquests created warlords who became monopolist judges which as if by an invisible hand created states with permanent exploitative structures. This was the greatest watershed in history because the state is an aggressive parasite. It absurdly monopolizes arbitration and thus can only be the result of aggression and enslavement. The state creates laws unilaterally and thus can exploit the people by regulating and taxing.
The definition of a State assumed here is rather uncontroversial: A State is an agency which possesses the exclusive monopoly of ultimate decision-making and conflict arbitration within a given territory. In particular, a State can insist that all conflicts involving itself be adjudicated by itself or its agents. Implied in the power to exclude all others from acting as ultimate judge, as the second defining element of a State, is its power to tax: to unilaterally determine the price justice seekers must pay to the State for its services as the monopolistic provider of law and order.9
Certainly, based on this definition it is easy to understand why there might be a desire to establish a State. It is not, as we are told in kindergarten, in order to attain the “common good” or because there would be no order without a State, but for a reason far more selfish and base. For he who is a monopolist of final arbitration within a given territory can make and create laws in his own favor rather than recognize and apply existing law; and he who can legislate can also tax and thus enrich himself at the expense of others. …
Assume a group of people, aware of the possibility of conflicts between them. Someone then proposes, as a solution to this human problem, that he (or someone) be made the ultimate arbiter in any such case of conflict, including those conflicts in which he is involved. Is this is a deal that you would accept? I am confident that he will be considered either a joker or mentally unstable. Yet this is precisely what all statists propose. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. The Great Fiction. pp. 104, 8.)
High IQ priests tried to justify the state and consequent exploitation by invaders with a new religion. The level of exploitation was then determined by aggressive demand (will to aggress) and resistant supply (rebellions and emigration). If the native population submitted then the militarist state developed into a mafia state and finally into a bureaucratic state where looting and enslavement was turned into taxation and regulation. At the same time people were gradually brainwashed into false consciousness with the stick and carrot -method. First it was claimed that resistance is both futile and sinful. This usually broke the will of the people. Then it was further claimed that the people are not exploited at all but actually benefit from state’s protection and care. This is why the rulers started to give the people bread and circuses.
Gradually both subsidies and civic participation (democratization) were increased and the people became divided into net tax eaters and net tax payers. This created a Ponzi scheme where everybody was trying to live at the expense of everybody else. Everybody hoped to gain subsidies, monopolies, cartels and other privileges from the state. Instead of fighting the state people joined forces with it. The state and sometimes even the ruler himself become a God to be worshiped.
Since the rulers of the states are as selfish as other people – often more so – the states tend to gradually increase exploitation, i.e. taxes, debt, monopolies and cartels. Even worse they pervert justice and gradually make the whole population into dishonest gangsters.
As a territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making and law enforcement, the state is not just like any other monopoly, such as a milk or a car monopoly that produces milk and cars of comparatively lower quality and higher prices. In contrast to all other monopolists, the state not only produces inferior goods, but “bads” (non-goods). In fact, it must first produce bads (such as taxes) before it can produce anything that might be considered a (inferior) good.
If an agency is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict, then it is also judge in all conflicts involving itself. Consequently, instead of merely preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will also cause and provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. That is, if one can only appeal to the state for justice, justice will be perverted in the favor of the state, constitutions and supreme courts notwithstanding.
These constitutions and courts are state constitutions and courts, and whatever limitations on state action they may set or find are invariably determined by agents of the very same institution under consideration. Predictably, the definition of property and protection will be continually altered and the range of jurisdiction expanded to the state’s advantage. The idea of some “given” eternal and immutable law that must be discovered will disappear and be replaced by the idea of law as legislation—as arbitrary, state-made law.
Moreover, as ultimate judge the state is also a monopolist of taxation, i.e., it can unilaterally, without the consent of everyone affected, determine the price that its subjects must pay for the state’s provision of (perverted) law. However, a tax-funded life-and-property protection agency is a contradiction in terms: an expropriating property protector. Motivated, as everyone is, by self-interest and the disutility of labor, but equipped with the unique power to tax, state agents will invariably strive to maximize expenditures on protection—and almost all of a nation’s wealth can conceivably be consumed by the cost of protection—and at the same time to minimize the actual production of protection. The more money one can spend and the less one must work for it, the better off one will be. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. The Great Fiction. pp. 191.)
In time this leads to the weakening of the economy and finally to the weakening of the state itself which is then eventually conquered by other less exploitative states. This paradox of imperialism eventually led to a rule of hegemonic empires. The Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman and Islamic empires were originally relatively low tax empires. However, the consequent decrease in interstate competition increased economic parasitism (taxation, monopolies, cartels) which at some point broke up the empire and the cycle of the state started again. This cycle was directed by the both positive/economic and negative/political negative hand. Often it was also accelerated by low birth rates of the more intelligent upper classes, mass immigration and mongrelization of the population.
Victory or defeat in interstate warfare depend on many factors, of course, but other things such as population size being the same, in the long run the decisive factor is the relative amount of economic resources at a state’s disposal. In taxing and regulating, states do not contribute to the creation of economic wealth. Instead, they parasitically draw on existing wealth.
However, state governments can influence the amount of existing wealth negatively. Other things being equal, the lower the tax and regulation burden imposed on the domestic economy, the larger the population will tend to grow and the larger the amount of domestically produced wealth on which the state can draw in its conflicts with neighboring competitors. That is, states which tax and regulate their economies comparatively little — liberal states — tend to defeat and expand their territories or their range of hegemonic control at the expense of less-liberal ones. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. The Paradox of Imperialism.)
VI. European freedom weakened the cycle of the state
White universalism, relatively low ethnocentrism and the evolutionary genius strategy gave rise to the Western idea of individual freedom. This idea was further strengthened by Christianity that raised average IQs by limiting cousin marriages.
The “miracle” in question consists in a simple but momentous fact: It was in Europe — and the extensions of Europe, above all, America — that human beings first achieved per capita economic growth over a long period of time. In this way, European society eluded the “Malthusian trap,” enabling new tens of millions to survive and the population as a whole to escape the hopeless misery that had been the lot of the great mass of the human race in earlier times. The question is: why Europe? …
Although geographical factors played a role, the key to western development is to be found in the fact that, while Europe constituted a single civilization — Latin Christendom — it was at the same time radically decentralized.7 In contrast to other cultures — especially China, India, and the Islamic world — Europe comprised a system of divided and, hence, competing powers and jurisdictions.
After the fall of Rome, no universal empire was able to arise on the Continent. This was of the greatest significance. Drawing on Montesquieu’s dictum, Jean Baechler points out that “every political power tends to reduce everything that is external to it, and powerful objective obstacles are needed to prevent it from succeeding” (Baechler 1975, 79). In Europe, the “objective obstacles” were provided first of all by the competing political authorities. Instead of experiencing the hegemony of a universal empire, Europe developed into a mosaic of kingdoms, principalities, city-states, ecclesiastical domains, and other political entities.
Within this system, it was highly imprudent for any prince to attempt to infringe property rights in the manner customary elsewhere in the world. In constant rivalry with one another, princes found that outright expropriations, confiscatory taxation, and the blocking of trade did not go unpunished. The punishment was to be compelled to witness the relative economic progress of one’s rivals, often through the movement of capital, and capitalists, to neighboring realms. The possibility of “exit,” facilitated by geographical compactness and, especially, by cultural affinity, acted to transform the state into a “constrained predator” (Anderson 1991, 58).
Decentralization of power also came to mark the domestic arrangements of the various European polities. Here feudalism — which produced a nobility rooted in feudal right rather than in state-service — is thought by a number of scholars to have played an essential role (see, e.g., Baechler 1975, 78). … In the end, even within the relatively small states of Europe, power was dispersed among estates, orders, chartered towns, religious communities, corps, universities, etc., each with its own guaranteed liberties. (Ralph Raico. The European Miracle)
VII. State capture by a hostile elite created the money machine and the business cycle
As a foreign minority, wherever they lived Jews have faced disabilities and dangers. The protection of the state, therefore, has for centuries seemed to represent opportunity and safety. For example, in both Europe and the Middle East during the medieval era, Jews were eager to induce rulers to grant them privileges and provide them with protection from potentially hostile neighbors. Because Jews tended to stimulate commerce and were a useful source of tax revenues, rulers were often happy to oblige. …
Jews played key roles in constructing a number of the most important states to emerge in the Mediterranean and Atlantic worlds over the past 700 years. These have included an extraordinary variety of regimes running the gamut from absolutist through liberal to Socialist governments. For many of these states, Jews were crucial in building and staffing institutions of extraction, coercion, administration, and mobilization. As we shall subsequently see, these relationships between Jews and the state have been the chief catalysts for organized anti-Semitism. …
Despite the severe disabilities to which religious minorities were typically subject, Jews played a remarkable role in the building of a number of absolutist regimes in both Christian Europe and the Muslim Middle East. Rulers were most likely to turn to Jews when they sought to expand their domains at the expense of foreign princes or centralize their power over the opposition of domestic magnates. The Jews who served absolutist regimes secured riches and power for themselves and protection for their communities. …
The historical dependence of Jews upon the state also gave rise to a Jewish philosophical tradition, beginning in the seventeenth century with Spinoza and continuing through the maskilim of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in which the state is glorified and venerated and seen, essentially, as a kind parent worthy of total obedience. …
As we shall see, Jews have continued to look to the state for protection and opportunity through the modern era. And, for their part, rulers have continued to see advantages in allying themselves with Jews. A confluence of three circumstances is most likely to encourage rulers to cultivate alliances with Jews. These are the desire to strengthen the powers of the state, substantial opposition to this endeavor from established elites, and the absence of alternative sources of financial, intellectual, and administrative talent. (Benjamin Ginsberg. The Fatal Embrace. 1993. p. 25-27. Emphasis added.)
VIII. Global capture by the money machine (U$Srael)
Competition between American fractional reserve banks was decreased in 1913 by creating the Federal Reserve central bank (FED).
2. Confiscating gold
The FED allowed the creation of huge amounts of new money during the WWI and the Roaring 20s making the banking system so unstable that the central bank and sometimes even the government had to bail out the banks especially in the 1930’s. Then in 1933 president Roosevelt propped up the ever more unstable bank cartel by confiscating all privately owned gold.
3. Bretton Woods system
After becoming the global superpower during WWII the US expanded its national banking cartel by creating a dollar dominated Bretton Woods international cartel banking system.
4. Abandoning gold standard
USA created so much new money during the 60’s that the international banking cartel started to again collapse. Other countries tried to redeem dollars into gold so USA went off the gold standard. Dollar was now a pure paper money.
5. Petrodollar system
US had to now create an even stronger global banking cartel with the U$Srael backed petrodollar system in order to artificially increase demand for ever increasing quantities of paper dollars. Those countries that refused to trade oil in dollars such as Iraq were destroyed by the U$rael warmachine.
6. EU and euro
However, this global banking cartel is still threatened by other appreciating currencies which are therefore gradually destroyed politically by merging German Mark and other strong European currencies and countries into euro and EU.
Switzerland, China and Russia are reluctant to be subjugated under this dollar imperialism but during the next Great Depression and bank panic they too will probably submit and join a future world central bank and world currency controlled by the FED.
The bank system thus has a clear internal cartel logic: Banks create ever more amounts of new money out of nothing which then threatens to crash the whole banking system. This is stopped first with a national bank cartel led by a national central bank (FED), then with an international cartel (Bretton Woods) then with an even more aggressive global cartel (U$Srael run petrodollar system) and finally when even this is not enough the banks must be saved with an global monopoly (world central bank with a new global currency). This all follows automatically from the inherently fraudulent manner of creating ever increasing quantities of new money with illusory private bank deposits. Trying to create something out of nothing always leads to disaster. Greed and the negative invisible hand makes sure of it.
The American petrodollar imperialism benefits the Americans, the Jews and the Saudis. However, it is the Jewish elite network led by Zionist bankers and the state of Israel that are the greatest beneficiaries of the petrodollar system. After all, the enormously expensive American military machine and police state works for the Israel Lobby. Therefore the Zionist have the greatest incentive to prop up the fraudulent fractional reserve banking system with their academic, media and political power. Now the private money machine works mainly for the benefit of the Jews and their old allies, the Saudis. This also explains why the world is inundated by both Philo-Semitism and Islamization.
From 1972 to 1974, the U.S. government made a series of agreements with Saudi Arabia. These agreements created the petrodollar system. … Saudi Arabia would:
- Use its dominant position in OPEC to ensure that all oil transactions would happen in U.S. dollars.
- Invest a large amount of its dollars from oil revenue in U.S. Treasury securities and use the interest payments from those securities to pay U.S. companies to modernize the infrastructure of Saudi Arabia.
- Guarantee the price of oil within limits acceptable to the U.S. and prevent another oil embargo by other OPEC members.
..U.S. has the unique privilege of not having to use foreign currency to buy imports, including oil. Instead, it gets to use its own currency, which it can print. It’s hard to overstate how much the petrodollar system benefits the U.S. dollar. It’s allowed the U.S. government and many Americans to live beyond their means for decades.
It also gives the U.S. unchecked geopolitical leverage. The U.S. can exclude virtually any country from the U.S. dollar-based financial system…and, by extension, from the vast majority of international trade. (Nick Giambruno. Ron Paul Say To Watch The Petrodollar)
IX. Money machine hides the Great depression with a scamdemic
Fractional reserve banking inevitably creates a business cycle and eventually a severe global depression. This will create an existential threat to U$Srael because people might rise against the private money machine, i.e. fractional reserve banking. Thus Israel has a huge incentive to try to pin the coming depression on some other factor with a false flag. Such a false flag might well be the Covid-19 pandemic. Whether the pandemic is totally fake (scamdemic), manufactured (plandemic) or merely exaggerated it allows not only the creation of a global police state but also the pinning of the coming depression on the pandemic. It is Israel that has the biggest incentive to create false flag pandemics or at least exaggerated media narratives in order to protect its money machine, the fractional reserve banking system.
It might not be a coincidence that both Israel and the Jewish dominated media and Big Tech are at the forefront of the virus scare. Already in early 2020 Israel was enacting the most draconian measures.
Israel has taken a unique approach to fighting COVID-19, allowing its security services to use tools normally used to follow terrorists to track carriers of the virus. The Mossad also helped bring 100,000 testing kits to Israel, although it was unclear if they were actually usable. The Israeli army is also joining the battle, and has instituted its own bus system for soldiers after public transport was shut down this week. …
Now millions are requested not to leave their homes, except for essentials. The health ministry has advocated a total lockdown, bringing traffic to a halt and sending police to ask people if they are ‘essential workers’ allowed to travel. This goes beyond methods that have proven successful in Singapore, South Korea and other countries and it is unclear if the draconian methods are working. (The American Spectator. Israel’s Draconian Lockdown Is Not Doing Enough To Stop Coronvirus. 27.3.2020)
X. Break-up of globalism and the re-emergence of nationalism and localism
After the business cycle has created a global economic crash civil wars will create new White ethnostates unless the globalist alliance between elite Jewish bankers and minorities wins.
If Whites win there will be peace and decentralism thus creating exponential economic growth. If not then multiculturalism will accelerate and lead to further dysgenics and the return of the the Malthusian trap.
[W]hereas under Malthusian conditions positive eugenic effects reign: the economically successful produce more surviving off spring and the population stock is thus gradually bettered (cognitively improved). Under post-Malthusian conditions the existence and the growth of the State produces a two-fold dysgenic effect, especially under democratic welfare-state conditions.14 For one, the “economically challenged,” as the principal “clients” of the welfare State, produce more surviving off spring, and the economically successful less.
Second, the steady growth of a parasitic State, made possible by a growing underlying economy, systematically affects the requirements of economic success. Economic success becomes increasingly dependent on politics and political talent, i.e., the talent of using the State to enrich oneself at others’ expense. In any case, the population stock becomes increasingly worse (as far as the cognitive requirements of prosperity and economic growth are concerned), rather than better. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Great Fiction. p. 82-83.)
To make matters worse it is not only the average IQs of nations that are dropping fast but the number of spiteful mutants is increasing fast.
At the start of Industrial Revolution, child mortality was 40 percent, but now it’s only 1 percent. It is important to recognize that people who have deficiencies of the mind — depression, autism, etc. — tend also to have physical defects: allergies, physical abnormalities, poor immune system, and so on. Physical defects lead to high infant mortality, so the deficiencies of mind associated with them would have been expunged from the population every generation. These people wouldn’t have survived childhood or wouldn’t have survived to live very long and have children. About 88 percent of the genome concerns the mind, so it’s a massive target for mutation. High rates of infant mortality purged mutations that affect the mind.
Lower rates of infant mortality mean you’re going to get more and more people — what Woodley calls spiteful mutants — who exhibit spiteful mutations of the mind. They advocate things that would be washed out in harsher evolutionary conditions because they’d make you destroy yourself. They make you go against evolutionary imperatives. Examples would be encouraging childlessness in women, homosexuality — which is a reproductive dead end — and welcoming aliens into one’s territory who then become fierce competitors for resources. (Edward Dutton Interview)
The worst is that these spiteful mutants are very common among the higher classes and especially among the Jews and Wasps because they have escaped Darwinian selection the most. It is not only that elite Jews and Wasps are a hostile elite but that they are also becoming an insane elite. They are more and more acting against their own long-term interests by supporting extreme multiculturalism and Cultural Marxism. This insane hostile elite then efficiently spreads these insane ideas to the masses making the whole society insane and literally satanist.
You’d expect the elite — and social class is accounted for 70 percent by genetics — to have more of these spiteful mutants, because their ancestors have probably been wealthier and been subject to Darwinian culling conditions for fewer generations than those whose ancestors were poor. And so you can see how these spiteful mutants can take control — over religion and over politics. These people would take over all institutions, and then they make the institutions maladaptive — they would make them go against evolutionary imperatives and so influence even non-mutants to be maladapted, by limiting their fertility, for example. …
Elites advocate those things, and then, they cause those with whom they associate — even if the associates are not mutants — to express their own genes sub-optimally because we’re adapted to live in the company of people who are normal, not mutants. And the mutants will want to take over, as this will be adaptive for their group. (Edward Dutton Interview)
How inevitable are the steps from one to ten? Obviously the first two steps are almost inevitable since both genes and humans tend to multiply. Also the third and fourth steps are highly likely since both adapting to local climate and privatizing land tends to help human groups survive and multiply their numbers.
With the steps five and six we enter the field of written history where the judicial monopoly and consequent cycle of state rules. Here too the historical process in antiquity seems almost inevitable since people did not understand political and economic science and thus were ignorant of both the negative and positive invisible hand. The development of the state was practically inevitable.
In principle Greeks and Romans could have stopped statism, developed economic science and started the Industrial Revolution already during the antiquity. However, that probably might not have been possible since average IQs were still very low and the culture was imperialistic. The state was absolutely needed to uphold slavery. Thus both slavery and the state were considered natural.
It was Germanized Christianity that after the fall of Rome not only protected individual rights but also helped raise average White IQs by outlawing cousin marriage. The consequent European wide decentralist political structure made it easier for the people to vote with their feet and invest in businesses relatively safely.
Probably only in Christian Europe could both the eugenicist and the invisible hand work efficiently enough to enable the escape from the Malthusian trap. Of course, Christianity was not inevitable but it does seem that it is just one manifestation of White and especially Germanic genetic individualism. Some other religion such as Zoroastrianism might have developed in similar fashion in Europe. It might have taken longer without the Church ban on cousin marriages but the rise in average White IQ seems inevitable as well as decentralism caused by White individualism.
The rest of the steps (7-10) are also very likely for two reasons. First, the emergence of fractional reserve banking (private monopoly money machine) is almost inevitable. For thousands of years the rulers tried to increase revenue with every possible trick from crude money clipping to paper money. It is difficult to see how the development of fractional reserve banking and fiat paper money could have been stopped as long as states existed.
For centuries the Catholic Church limited the development of large scale fractional reserve banking but here the decentralized political nature of Europe meant that eventually the bankers would succeed. They could try again and again until they succeeded in some state. The temptation for the bankers and rulers was just too big. Who would not want to have his own monopoly money machine? Once you had it running you could easily buy off not only your critics but the whole state apparatus.
Second, the role of Jewish bankers in the development of statism and fractional reserve banking also seems inevitable. After all, they have been experts in politics and banking for thousands of years. Even more importantly they were the financiers and right hand men of many rulers and thus were in the prime position to develop step by step both statism and fractional reserve banking. Naturally at some point they had to get the Gentile political and business elite in the money plot. After having failed to manipulate banking in Venice, Hamburg and Amsterdam the Jewish bankers helped create the misnamed Glorious Revolution of 1688 and then finally the (Central) Bank of England in 1694.
Now started an enormous hidden income transfer from the people to the bankers and the state. Even worse was the fact that banking and thus the economy became a house of cards which had to be propped up by even more cartels, imperialism and globalism. As if this was not bad enough the fractional reserve banking also gave birth to an ever worsening business cycle which now more than ever threatens to crash the whole world economy.
The Jewish bankers spent centuries to advance from junior to senior partners in the Bank of England and its daughter, the FED. At the same time they propped up the monetary and economic house of cards by helping to create satellite central banks, empires, political unions (USA, EU) and finally petrodollar and the rule of U$Srael. Jewish bankers have done literally everything to protect statism and the money machine with their unique global network and propaganda machine. This process has now lasted for over 2000 years and the world police state is finally close at hand.
Is global power exactly what elite Jews have been planning for 2000 years? This would not be that surprising considering that already the ancient Jews claimed to have manipulated many great empires from Egypt to Persia. The Jews certainly have never been lacking in ambition. After all, they consider themselves the God’s Chosen People.
The history of the last 2000 years was not inevitable. It is possible to imagine an alternative sequence of events. What if in 600 BC the Babylonians had not taken the Jewish elite into captivity or what if the Jews had assimilated like during the Assyrian captivity hundred years earlier?
What if the Jewish Diaspora had been avoided and the Court Jew tradition had never developed? Would this have saved Whites from an ethnically separate hostile elite? Perhaps but a hostile elite does not have to be foreign to exploit the people. Judicial monopoly would have still have kept the cycle of state going. Other court bankers would have developed anyway and they too would probably sooner or later have managed to create fractional reserve banking. Judicial monopoly almost inevitably leads to a money monopoly.
Instead of being ruled jointly by Wasp and Zionist bankers we would be ruled only by Wasp or similar bankers. Would that have changed anything? The economy would still have developed into a house of cards and the business cycle would still have created periodic economic depressions. Also the globalist invade-invite the world warfare-welfare-police state would have developed anyway.
Perhaps the biggest difference would have been the noblesse oblige of the ruling elite. Economic exploitation and cultural Marxism would have been much less intense. After all, when the Wasps led by the Morgans ruled the world in the 1920’s they did support relatively free markets, immigration restrictions and eugenics until they were pushed to the side by the alliance of the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. Even then it took decades for the Jews to open the American and European borders and start intense Cultural Marxism. Without the Jewish influence we would probably have a much more benevolent and humane ruling class but it would still exploit the people. Moreover states always have a tendency to increase exploitation, hegemony and war. Without Jews there would still be a statist tendency toward Cultural Marxism and a world police state.
So was statism inevitable? Not necessarily. The key to history are not Jews but monopolies. Moreover, even the most devious Court Jews could have been held at bay IF the Whites had been a bit more smarter and liberty minded. It was probably a close call. For hundreds of years the Church and the natural individualism of the Whites managed to stop the development of states and fractional reserve banking in the West. In fact, history could have taken a radically different turn if Court Jews had not made the kings of France so powerful. After all, it was Filip IV who destroyed the power of Popes and the Templars who run a honest European wide 100% reserve banking system.
In the West, the banking business went into steep decline after the collapse of the Roman Empire around the year 476. Significant banking activity reemerged after the Templar order was founded in 1119. The Templars developed an advanced banking system. Importantly, however, the Templars did not engage in fractional reserve banking. It must be stressed that the Templar’s 100% reserve system did not fail. Rather, in 1307, the tyrant Philip IV of France destroyed the Templars in a failed attempt to steal the order’s vast precious metals reserves. (Edward W. Fuller. 100% Banking and its Advocates. A Brief History.)
But still it was not only Jewish bankers who started to practice fractional reserve banking. The Gentile bankers were also enthusiastic. Fortunately for hundreds of years the Church still managed to limit the spread of fractional reserve banking. First the Bank of Venice and then the Bank of Amsterdam became famous for 100% reserves. But then the dutchman William III together with his court Jews invaded England in the misnamed Glorious Revolution. They soon created a fractional banking system with the Bank of England in 1694 and made it the heart of British imperialism. However, there was still much resistance especially in England and Scotland. In 1844 there was a heroic effort by the Currency School to totally stop fractional reserve banking but the Peel Act was designed to fail because it absurdly ignored demand deposits. Here again White stupidity betrayed liberty.
In America there was more hope with the Democratic Jeffersonian-Jacksonian Bank War against the American central bank. The Liberty Democrats almost managed to end fractional reserve banking but then the War of Northern Aggression turned back the clock. However, here again the power of the bankers was cemented only by the fact that hardly anyone denounced statist money and fractional reserve banking. This made it possible for the Jewish Rothschilds and Warburgs to create the FED in 1913 together with the Morgans and the Rockefellers. Finally the creation of a petrodollar system in the 1970’s opened the gates to unlimited creation of paper money. This lead to the triumph of Cultural Marxist globalism and the creation of U$Srael.
Maybe all these watersheds of history could have been prevented if Jews had never existed. It is thus quite possible to blame the Jews for the emergence of both states (law monopoly) and fractional reserve banking (money monopoly) in Europe. Without the Jews the Church could probably have been able to stop both. In fact, it almost stopped them despite the Jews helping states and bankers.
But can we still blame the Jews? After all, both law monopoly and money monopoly are absurd ideas. Why did not White intellectuals – including Church intellectuals – denounce them in the clearest and strongest terms? Why did they not aggressively denounce statist fraud and obvious Ponzi schemes so that all would understand what is at stake? Perhaps because they hoped to benefit from statism and “free” money?
Even the Church had its own state, the Papal States and therefore did not challenge the root of statism, the monopoly of arbitration. The Church also often cooperated with Jewish and other fractional reserve bankers to finance both their Papal states and their international Catholic organization. The Church and the White intellectual elite simply got greedy. It is this intellectual and especially moral failure that doomed the Whites. Jews cannot be blamed for that.
It seems quite certain that statism and especially fractional reserve banking could have been stopped if someone would have written an inspiring book on the dangers of judicial and banking monopolies and explained how Jewish bankers can easily use them to become a hostile ruling elite. Why did not White intellectual write such books? They almost did. There were two high-profile attempts to clearly denounce judicial and money monopoly and explain what was at stake. However, both times it was the White classical liberals who betrayed liberty!
It was the famous classical liberal Frederic Bastiat and his circle who actively defended judicial monopoly by bullying the young brilliant Gustave de Molinari. The leaders of classical liberalism saved the state.
The young [Gustave de] Molinari, however, hit the laissez-faire-oriented Societe d’Economie Politique like a thunderclap in 1849, with his most famous and original work. He delivered a paper expounding, for the first time in history, a pure and consistent laissez-faire, to the point of calling for free and unhampered competition in what are generally called uniquely ’public’ services: in particular, the sphere of police and judicial protection of person and private property. If free competition is better and more efficient in supplying all other goods and services, Molinari reasoned, why not for this last bastion, police and judicial protection – a view that over a century later would come to be called ’anarcho-capitalism’.
Molinari first set forth his view in the Journal des Economistes, the periodical of the Societe, in February 1849. (18) This article was quickly expanded into book form, Les Soirees de la Rue Saint-Lazare, a series of fictional dialogues between three protagonists: the conservative (advocate of high tariffs and state monopoly privilege); the socialist; and the economist (clearly himself). The final, or eleventh, Soiree elaborated further on how his concept of free market protective services could work in practice. …
A meeting of the Societe d’Economie Politique in 1849 was devoted to Molinari’s daring new book, the Soirées. Charles Coquelin opined that justice needs a “supreme authority,” and that no competition in any area can exist without the supreme authority of the State.
In a similarly unsupported and a priori fulmination, Frederic Bastiat declared that justice and security can only be guaranteed by force, and that force can only be the attribute of a “supreme power,” the State. Neither commentator bothered to engage in a critique of Molinari’s arguments. Only Charles Dunoyer did so, complaining that Molinari had been carried away by the “illusions of logic,” and maintaining that “competition between governmental companies is chimerical, because it leads to violent battles.”
Dunoyer, instead, chose to rely on the “competition” of political parties within representative government – hardly a satisfactory libertarian solution to the problem of social conflict! He also opined that it was most prudent to leave force in the hands of the State, “where civilization has put it” – this is from one of the great founders of the conquest theory of the State!
Unfortunately, this critical issue was barely treated in the meeting, since the discussion largely centered on Dunoyer’s and the other economists’ criticizing Molinari for going too far in attacking all uses of eminent domain by the State. (Murray N. Rothbard. An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. 2: Classical Economics. Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar, 1995. Pp. 454, 455-457.)
This classical liberal betrayal was a momentous watershed in European history. For centuries the elite Jews did their best to defend statism but can they really be blamed? Whites let them. Whites were thus the main culprits. Even the most freedom minded of the Whites really believed in the state. Even de Molinari himself would later in his old age succumb to the pressure and start to support the existence of the state.
At the same time the White classical liberals also accepted the absurd money monopoly, i.e. fractional reserve banking. This was the second momentous watershed of European history. There is no excuse. Monopoly in arbitration is absurdly evil but monopoly in money is absurdly insane. It is literally based in the black magic idea of creating something out of nothing.
Government paper, as pernicious as it may be, is a relatively straightforward form of counterfeiting. The public can understand the concept of ”printing dollars” and spending them, and they can understand why such a flood of dollars will come to be worth a great deal less than gold, or than uninflated paper, of the same denomination, whether ”dollar,” ”franc,” or ”mark.” Far more difficult to grasp, however, and therefore far more insidious, are the nature and consequences of ”fractional-reserve banking,” a more subtle and modern form of counterfeiting. It is not difficult to see the consequences of a society awash in a flood of new paper money; but it is far more difficult to envision the results of an expansion of intangible bank credit. …
We get closer to the nub of the problem when we realize that, historically, there has existed a very different type of ”bank”. In the history of the U. S. grain market, grain elevators several times fell prey to .. temptation, spurred by a lack of clarity in bailment law. Grain elevators issued fake warehouse receipts in grain during the 1860s, lent them to speculators in the Chicago wheat market, and caused dislocations in wheat prices and bankruptcies in the wheat market. Only a tightening of bailment law, ensuring that any issue of fake warehouse receipts is treated as fraudulent and illegal, finally put an end to this clearly impermissible practice. Unfortunately, however, this legal development did not occur in the vitally important field of warehouses for money, or deposit banking. …
If ”fractional-reserve” grain warehousing, that is, the issuing of warehouse receipts for non-existent goods, is clearly fraudulent, then so too is fractional-reserve warehousing for a good even more fungible than grain, i.e., money (whether it be gold or government paper). Unfortunately, since bailment law was undeveloped in the nineteenth century, the bankers’ counsel were able to swing the judicial decisions their way. …
In the final culminating case, Foley v. Hill and Others, decided by the House of Lords in 1848, Lord Cottenham, repeating the reasoning of the previous cases, put it lucidly if astonishingly: The money placed in the custody of a banker is, to all intents and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable to the principal if he puts it into jeopardy, if he engages in a hazardous speculation; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of his principal; but he is, of course, answerable for the amount, because he has contracted.
The argument of Lord Cottenham and of all other apologists for fractional-reserve banking, that the banker only contracts for the amount of money, but not to keep the money on hand, ignores the fact that if all the depositors knew what was going on and exercised their claims at once, the banker could not possibly honor his commitments. In other words, honoring the contracts, and maintaining the entire system of fractional-reserve banking, requires a structure of smoke and mirrors, of duping the depositors into thinking that ”their” money is safe, and would be honored should they wish to redeem their claims. The entire system of fractional reserve banking, therefore, is built on deceit, a deceit connived at by the legal system.
A crucial question to be asked is this: why did grain warehouse law, where the conditions—of depositing fungible goods—are exactly the same, and grain is a general deposit and not an earmarked bundle—develop in precisely the opposite direction? Why did the courts finally recognize that deposits of even a fungible good, in the case of grain, are emphatically a bailment, not a debt? Could it be that the bankers conducted a more effective lobbying operation than did the grain men? (Murray N. Rothbard. The Case Against the Fed. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1994. Pp. 30, 33, 42, 44.)
The ideological acceptance of fractional reserve banking doomed mankind to suffer the ever worsening boom-bust business cycle. This inevitably led to ever bigger states and the intellectual and political victory of the anti-liberty movement. The classical liberal movement had committed suicide. The Jews obviously helped in this but the fault was Whites alone. The ideas of statist power and free money corrupted them.
Naturally elite Jews understood all this. They started to play a double game. On the one hand banker Jews defended state capitalism while socialist Jews seemingly denounced the state. The liberty minded Whites were now in an ideologically impossible situation. Socialists attacked statism while classical liberals defended it. Moreover, socialists promised to protect workers from the exploitation of bankers and Big Business while classical liberals defended the fraudulent bankers and absurd state capitalism! No wonder the socialists won the intellectual battle in the sense that they got people on their side. The ideas of liberty were discredited.
Perhaps one intelligent and honest man would have been enough to stop statism. But for some reason no one managed to successfully warn the people that monopolies in arbitration and money are not only absurd but lethal to the White race. Instead of the White Freedom Manifesto and Liberty we got the Jewish Communist Manifesto and U$Srael.
Read more articles from the Rationalist science-series: