Version 5. Rewritten and significantly updated with lists in 6.4.2021
Table of contents:
Rationalist interpretation of history
3. Epistemological dualism
4. Methodological trinity
5. Methodological individualism
6. Social laws
7. Ethical laws
8. Exploitation theory
A. Parasite theory of the state
1. The Jewish Problem
2. The ruling elite
3. The cycle of the rulers
4. Trend towards the world state
5. Trend towards centralization
6. Trend towards Culture of Critique
7. The Business cycle
8. The Ratchet effect
9. The Paradox of Imperialism
B. The parasite theory of history
1. Natural order
2. Parasitic order
2.1. Cartel of aristocratic parasites
2.2. Monopolist monarchical parasite
2.3. Democratic parliament of short-lived parasites
3. Theory of anacyclosis
4. Whig theory of history
5. Libertarian theory of history
6. The Great Man theory
Rationalist interpretation of history
All our action requires that we understand the past. We are all historians at least in our own life. The principles of studying our own life and the life of humanity itself are the same. History is not just an antiquarian curiosity but something much greater. It helps both an individual and humanity to understand past and therefore also the present and future. However, studying history is not easy. In order to understand history properly we have to understand the general principles of existence, action and life itself. A historian must also be a philosopher scientist.
History is factual information about a series of past individual events. But it is not enough to just collect information because facts alone do not speak. They have to be interpreted and connected into a coherent narrative. To connect atomistic facts into a narrative we have to have a rationalist theory. We have to set aside feelings and use reason. We have to start from the beginning by trying to understand reality with both internal reflections and external observations.
When using reason we immediately notice that our reflective thinking is constrained by the logical structure of our minds. We can only think by obeying the laws of logic. They are a priori in the sense that they are axiomatic. They cannot be disproved because even trying to disprove them would only confirm them. They are the laws of thought.
Similarly when making external observations we notice that our conceptual tools are a priori. The basic principles and standards of mathematics and protophysics cannot be proven wrong because all measurement already presupposes them. The laws of mathematics and protophysics are the starting point of knowledge of external observations.
How does internal reflection and external observations connect with each other? If we are aprioristic prisoners of our own logical structure of mind then how can we even know if reality really exists outside our own minds? How to bridge thinking with external reality? This is the eternal big question, the desideratum of philosophy. The tragedy of rationalism was that it failed to fully solve or at least fully explicate it. This failure opened the gates to relativism and the horrors of modernism. But then finally 70 years ago Radical Rationalism found the key: Praxeology, the logic of action. It solved the riddle by pointing out that thinking is action too! The environment is divided into subject and object with the goal of studying and changing it. Thinking is practically a crusade.
In acting, the mind of the individual sees itself as different from its environment, the external world, and tries to study this environment in order to influence the course of events happening in it. … Both, apriori thinking and reasoning on the one hand and human action on the other, are manifestations of the mind. … Reason and action are congeneric and homogeneous, two aspects of the same phenomenon. (Ludwig von Mises. The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, pp. 35-36, 42).
By thinking we try to purposefully improve our own knowledge and understanding. Thus even mere reflective thinking is an action. This praxeological realization has momentous consequences. It means that thinking is constrained by the categories of logic and action: Knowledge, time, causality, regularity, goals, means, choices, value and finally profit and loss.
[K]nowledge is a tool of action. Its function is to advise man how to proceed in his endeavor to remove uneasiness…. The category of action is the fundamental category of human knowledge. It implies all the categories of logic and the category of regularity and causality. It implies the category of time and that of value. (Ludwig von Mises. The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, pp. 35-36.)
By realizing that knowledge is a category of action and thus laws of thinking are grounded on and constrained by the framework of action categories the gulf between mental and physical is finally bridged. Thus by substituting praxeological aprioristic acting mind for the traditional aprioristic active mind solves the Kantian idealistic dilemma that seemed to absurdly imply that the world is created by the mind. The axiomatic and realistic nature of praxeology provides the missing link in defense of rationalism against relativism. Reason and action are two sides of the same coin.
[Ludwig von] Mises took the idea of synthetic a priori – the idea that there are true statements about reality, derived from axioms and logic, that do not need to be tested – from Immanuel Kant. But Mises added an extremely important insight: Kantian mental categories can be understood as ultimately grounded in categories of action. With this, Mises bridged the gulf in Kantianism that separates mental from physical; what we think from the outside, physical world. (An Interview with Hans-Hermann Hoppe)
Second, since reason and action are two sides of the same coin it follows that praxeology is the foundation of the theory of knowledge, epistemology. Praxeology is the basis of all our knowledge. In a sense this is extreme form of economic imperialism. Even our thoughts are governed by the categories and laws of economics! No wonder philosophers who consider themselves above mundane affairs have always shrieked in horror at such an idea. But it is true nonetheless. In fact, it is self-evident once one dares to face the truth.
But what exactly is implied in the categories of action? Mises never went into details but his follower Hans-Hermann Hoppe did by introducing a second and corollary axiom.
The second axiom is the so-called “a priori of argumentation,” which states that humans are capable of argumentation and hence know the meaning of truth and validity. … Action and argumentation axioms are interwoven strands of a priori knowledge. Thus, what it means to act and to have knowledge implied in action – both the meaning of action in general and argumentation in particular must be thought of as logically necessary interwoven strands of a priori knowledge. (ESAM, pp. 65-66.)
By joining together the axioms of action and argumentation into an interwoven praxeological system it is possible to deduce the laws of logic.
When one understands that knowledge as displayed in argumentation is a peculiar category of action, the validity of the perennial rationalist claim that the laws of logic—beginning here with the most fundamental ones of propositional logic and of Junctors (“and,” “or,” “if-then,” “not”) and Quantors (“there is,” “all,” “some”)—are a priori true propositions about reality and not mere verbal stipulations regarding the transformation rules of arbitrarily chosen signs, as empiricist-formalists would have it, becomes clear. They are as much laws of thinking as of reality because they are laws that have their ultimate foundation in action and can not be undone by any actor. …
In each and every action, an actor identifies some specific situation and categorizes it one way rather than another in order to be able to make a choice. It is this which ultimately explains the structure of even the most elementary propositions (like “Socrates is a man”) as consisting of a proper name or some identifying expression for the naming or identifying of something and a predicate to assert or deny some specific property of the named or identified object. It is this which explains the cornerstones of logic: the laws of identity and contradiction. …
And it is this universal feature of action and choosing which also explains our understanding of the categories “there is,” “all,” “some,” “and,” “or,” “if-then,” and “not.” One can, say, of course, that something can be “a” and “non-a” at the same time, or that “and” means this rather than something else. But one cannot undo the law of contradiction and one cannot undo the real definition of “and.” Simply by virtue of acting with a physical body in physical space we invariably affirm the law of contradiction and invariably display our true constructive knowledge of the meaning of “and” and “or.” (ESAM, p. 71)
Praxeology is also the foundation of arithmetic and geometry. The laws of thought are integrated with the concrete reality of protophysics because all our thinking requires purposeful actions where we have to at least seek knowledge and at the same time measure and calculate time.
Similarly, the ultimate reason for arithmetic’s being an a priori and yet empirical discipline, as rationalists have always understood it, now also becomes discernible. (Ibid. p. 71)
Arithmetic and its character as an a priori-synthetic intellectual discipline is rooted in our understanding of repetition—the repetition of action. More precisely, it rests on our understanding the meaning of “do this—and do this again, starting from the present result.” Also, arithmetic deals with real things: with constructed or constructively identified units of something. It demonstrates what relations hold between such units because of the fact that they are constructed according to the rule of repetition. (Ibid. p. 73.)
Spatial knowledge is also included in the meaning of action. Action is the employment of a physical body in space. Without acting there could be no knowledge of spatial relations and no measurement.
Measuring relates something to a standard. Without standards, there is no measurement, and there is no measurement which could ever falsify the standard. Evidently, the ultimate standard must be provided by the norms underlying the construction of bodily movements in space and the construction of measurement instruments by means of one’s body and in accordance with the principles of spatial constructions embodied in it. … (Ibid. p. 75.)
Any actual measurement must already presuppose the validity of the norms leading to the construction of one’s measurement standards. It is in this sense that geometry is an a priori science and must simultaneously be regarded as an empirically meaningful discipline because it is not only the very precondition for any empirical spatial description, but it is also the precondition for any active orientation in space. (Ibid. p. 76)
[T]he status of geometry as an a priori science is ultimately grounded in our understanding of action and in so far praxeology must be regarded as the more fundamental cognitive discipline.. (Ibid. p. 81.)
Praxeology is for the field of action what Euclidean geometry is for the field of observations (non-actions). As the geometry incorporated in our measuring instruments constrains the spatial structure of observational reality so praxeology constrains the range of things that can possibly be experienced in the field of actions. (Ibid, p. 81-82.)
3. Epistemological dualism
We are not freely floating non-material thinking spirits but always connected to physical reality. In this reality there is scarcity of time, knowledge and physical resources. All actions try to improve the actor’s situation. Every thought is an action where at minimum we try to gain new knowledge and better understanding of our situation. During each thought action we live both in the inner world of reflection and in the outer world of observations.
When we use our reason logically by both reflecting on ourselves and observing the physical reality that surrounds us we realize that reality is divided into two spheres: Actions and reactions. Action takes place in a universe with natural objects and causality. Natural objects do not act but only react to causal stimuli. They are under the control of natural laws which are utilized in action.
If there were only actions in the universe there would be no laws but everything would be chaotic. Action is only possible because of epistemological dualism. Humans have a unique double role in universe because on the one hand they can act but on the other hand their actions take place in a orderly universe that make it possible to predict the consequences of actions and causally influence events.
Action presupposes a causally structured observational reality, but the reality of action which we can understand as requiring such structure, is not itself causally structured. Instead, it is a reality that must be categorized teleologically, as purpose-directed, meaningful behavior. …
In fact, one can neither deny nor undo the view that there are two categorically different realms of phenomena, since such attempts would have to presuppose causally related events qua actions that take place within observational reality as well as the existence of intentionally rather than causally related phenomena in order to interpret such observational events as meaning to deny something. Neither a causal nor a teleological monism could be justified without running into an open contradiction (Ibid. pp. 78-79)
4. Methodological trinity
From epistemological dualism follows three very different methodologies: First, actions are studied with the method of historicism. It studies actions by analyzing the motives, goals, means and choices of actions. Their contents are unique and depend on the context of action. Humans have a free will. We can never fully and with absolute certainty know the thoughts and feelings of other person. We can only speculate and make educated guesses because humans can usually understand each other. The method of historicism is speculative understanding of actions.
Thus, knowledge regarding the particular course of actions is only a posteriori. Since such knowledge would have to include the actor’s own knowledge— as a necessary ingredient of every action whose every change can have an influence on a particular action being chosen—teleological knowledge must also necessarily be reconstructive or historical knowledge. It would only provide ex post explanations which would have no systematic bearing on the prediction of future actions because future states of knowledge could never be predicted on the basis of constantly operating empirical causes. Obviously, such science of action fits the usual description of such disciplines as history and sociology. (Ibid. p. 80-81.)
Second, actions can also be studied with the method of apriorism. It studies the aspects of action that are already presupposed in action, i.e. the formal relationships of goals and means. These do have absolute regularities in the sense that the acting individual tries to always maximize his success in attaining his goals. From this follows all the laws of economics and politics. They do not determine actions but they do constrain them. Individual still has a free will but his choices are limited by the laws of action and interaction.
Third, the reactions of natural objects can be studied with the method of empiricism. Senses are used to make observations and then the reactions between natural objects are studied with laboratory style analysis where hypotheses are tested to find regularities and laws of nature. Also these laws do not determine actions but they do constrain them. Individual still has a free will but his choices are limited by the laws of nature. He cannot fly like a bird nor swim like a fish.
Rationalism thus includes aspects of all three major theories of knowledge, historicism, apriorism and empiricism. It sees them all as true and useful provided that they are applied in the proper way: Human action is studied with the method of historicism and apriorism while the reactions of natural objects are studied with the method of empiricism. Mixing these methods leads to false science. For example, empiricism is not a proper method in the study of human sciences nor is historicism and apriorism in the study of natural science. However, all three are based on rationalist apriorism in the more general sense that they all have to follow the praxeological laws of thought and protophysics.
5. Methodological individualism
From historicism follows methodological individualism. Only individuals act. Groups do not act even if individual actions can be coordinated so that it may look like a group acts. Group action is only a metaphor. Nations do not act nor do states. They can be led by a small group of people either by example or by violent force. In order to understand the behavior of groups we have to study the individual actions of the members of the group.
When we are studying individuals we have to try to understand not only 1) the historical motives and purposes of acting individuals but also the 2) empirical laws of nature and 3) apriori laws of action (social laws) that constrain those actions. In this way we can know what is possible and what is not. For example, the empirical natural sciences tell us that there never existed gods of water and air. Nor did there exist any real witches who could cast spells and fly with their brooms. The apriori social sciences tell us that supply and demand coordinate economic interaction and frustrate such involuntary interaction as price regulations and socialism. By understanding not only the laws of nature but also the laws of economics and politics we can understand at least the broad strokes of history.
6. Social laws
From apriorism follows axiomatic theorems that create social laws. These help us understand action. If you do not understand these axiomatic theories you are as ignorant as a person who believes in witches.
From the Christian Middle Ages through Spanish Scholasticism to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of Enlightenment, parallel to and intertwined with the development of “normative” natural rights theory, a systematic body of economic theory developed, culminating in the writings of Cantillon and Turgot. According to this intellectual tradition—carried on in the nineteenth century by Say, Senior, Cairnes, Menger, and Böhm-Bawerk, and in the twentieth century by Mises, Robbins, and Rothbard— economics was viewed as a “logic of action.” Starting with self-evident propositions and combining these with a few empirical and empirically testable assumptions, economics was conceived as an axiomatic-deductive science and economic theorems as propositions which were at the same time realistic and nonhypothetically or a priori true.48
Consider, for instance, the following economic propositions: In every voluntary exchange, both partners must expect to profit, they must evaluate the things to be exchanged as having unequal value, and they must have opposite preference orders. Or: Whenever an exchange is not voluntary, but coerced, such as highway robbery or taxation, one exchange party benefits at the expense of the other. Or: Whenever minimum wage laws are enforced that require wage rates to be higher than existing market wages, involuntary unemployment will result. Or: Whenever the quantity of money is increased while the demand for money remains unchanged, the purchasing power of money will fall.
Or: Any supply of money is equally, “optimal,” such that no increase in the money supply can raise the overall standard of living (while it can have redistributive effects). Or: Collective ownership of all factors of production makes cost accounting impossible, and hence leads to permanent misallocations. Or: Taxation of income producers, other things remaining the same, raises their effective rate of time preference, and hence leads to a lower output of goods produced. Apparently, these theorems contain knowledge about reality, and yet they do not seem to be hypothetical (empirically falsifiable) propositions but rather true by definition. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. The Great Fiction, p. 462)
6. Ethical laws
Apriorism does not only give us axiomatic economic theorems but also axiomatic ethical theorems. Action itself requires at least a body. A rational person cannot deny that each individual has the right to control his own body and then use it to homestead, produce and contract physical objects and land. By trying to deny self-ownership and property rights an individual would have to engage in argumentation which itself presupposes property rights. Argumentation ethics proves the axiomatic nature of propertarianism. It gives justification for the natural order of private property rights. What would be more natural than the fact that we all have the right to control our own bodies and property we have gained from unused nature or contractually from others.
7. Exploitation theory
Propertarianism creates a peaceful contractual society where property rights are protected and all conflicts are solved in arbitration. Individuals and their society is free. A good example is Iceland in High Medieval Times. Tyranny emerges when the rights of individuals are violated with law monopoly, i.e. the institution of state that has monopoly on arbitration and violence. The state uses its power to enslave (jurisdiction, slavery, conscription), steal (tax) and regulate (monopolies and cartels) the people. Almost all of classical and modern history is dominated by the states which try to justify their existence with relativism and interventionism. Rationalist theory helps us to understand how history has been a battle between rationalism and relativism, propertarianism and interventionism, liberty and state.
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.)
These basic rationalist economic and political categories and laws make it is easy to evaluate historical events. Ideas that violate the laws of logic, nature, action or interaction are false and take history into wrong direction away from justice, peace and prosperity. It is possible to classify all relativist ideas (empiricism, historicism, postmodernism) in philosophy as false. Similarly, socialist (interventionist and communist) ideas in politics and economics are not only unethical but usually also counter-productive in the long run.
Judging historical figures morally is more complex and depends on the culture the individual is steeped in. However, we can still morally judge a culture of slavery and cannibalism. Similarly we can morally judge a culture of statism but depending on the culture of the country it might be anachronistic to morally judge a person’s political actions who has lived his whole life in a statist culture. However, even then we can judge if the person purposefully lies and violently attacks other people on a personal level. To an extent history can also be a moral lesson.
By understanding the unethical and aggressive nature of a slave society we can predict much of its development. We know that there will be a conflict with the slaves and slave owners. We can predict how slavery affects the society by creating conflicts and crisis situations. And since statism is also slavery we can also understand much of the history of the last 5000 years. By merely studying the nature of the state we can know not only the framework of history but also the possible paths of statist history.
A. The parasite theory of the state
From the rationalist perspective the worst social idea has always been the institutionalization of aggression. The state is monopoly of arbitration and violence. Thus the state is in a parasitical relationship with individuals. It robs you of your right to arbitration by decreeing judgments and laws that enslave you, tax your property and regulate your trade and other interaction. (Autistic, binary and triangular intervention.) State is simply a parasite that slows us down. If it grows too big it will destroy us. The parasite theory of the state explains much of history. It is a simple theory that has been understood since time immemorial.
French revolution: before and after: satirical drawing by French draftsman Caran d’Ache, 1898, in the middle of the Dreyfus affair and the foundation of Action Française. Although the Ancien Régime is not shown as idyllic, the contemporary situation is shown as an increase of oppression, which technical improvements (notice the plowshare) don’t lighten, and to which financial capitalism (the banker with his top hat and his wallet), the Freemason (with his set square and plumb bob) and the Jew (with a curved nose) are contributors. (Wikipedia)
The rise and fall of civilizations has always fascinated historians. For classical liberals and libertarians the reason for the rise and fall has been clear: Political decentralization weakens the state parasite. This gives rise to liberty and prosperity until political centralization destroys first liberty, then the economy and finally there is a collapse and revolution that changes the political structure of the state. The belief and trust in the parasite state creates an error cycle that directs history into a wrong direction.
This theory of the parasite state has always been known among the historians but they have been pressured and bribed to glorify state. The ancient intellectuals glorified both war and slavery so the people often saw the state as an absolute necessity. It was only in Europe where Christianity and political decentralization together created the idea of freedom and finally made the Industrial Revolution possible. One of the most prominent proponents of this theory has been the classical liberal historian Ralph Raico in his The Struggle for Liberty lecture series and especially in his famous essay The European Miracle:
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.
The classical liberal thesis is simple and convincing but it could never properly explain why there is a clear tendency in history towards statism and political centralization. Why is it that people relatively easily accept the parasite state and its tyranny? This sad fact was lucidly noted in 1577 by Etienne de la Boetie in his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (Discours de la Servitude Volontaire):
Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice? … If a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice? When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery, what shall we call that? Is it cowardice? …
When a thousand, a million men, a thousand cities, fail to protect themselves against the domination of one man, this cannot be called cowardly, for cowardice does not sink to such a depth. . . . What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice, a vice for which no term can be found vile enough . . . ?11
It would be so easy to topple the ruler and destroy the parasite. Just rise up.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.16
If it is so easy to topple the tyrant and the parasite state itself why people so often just submit to the state? Are people like children who have a natural instinct to submit to their rulers? Is there a natural tendency toward tyranny? No. The classical liberals did not believe that. Instead they believed that a man has a natural instinct or determination to better his situation and free himself from shackles. Adam Smith noted that this natural determination is what drives history forward despite the parasitical state:
This frugality and good conduct, however, is upon most occasions, it appears from experience, sufficient to compensate, not only the private prodigality and misconduct of individuals, but the public extravagance of government. The uniform, constant, and uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition, the principle from which public and national, as well as private opulence is originally derived, is frequently powerful enough to maintain the natural progress of things towards improvement, in spite both of the extravagance of government and of the greatest errors of administration. Like the unknown principle of animal life, it frequently restores health and vigour to the constitution, in spite, not only of the disease, but of the absurd prescriptions of the doctor. (Wealth of Nations, book 3, chapter 2.)
But why then people so easily accept tyranny? The answer is clear: People are on the one hand threatened by violence and on the other hand duped by anti-liberty ideas. This is why the states always want to control the police, courts, schools, universities and the media. Even when people are heavily taxed and regulated they usually do not rise up because they are both afraid and confused. They are afraid of the police and confused by all the propaganda about the virtues of taxes and the state.
1. The Jewish Problem
But if the trend of history should be towards liberty unless people are somehow duped and pressured to give up their rights then the question becomes: What group has financed the development of the state itself and purposefully manipulated people to acquiesce to its rule even in decentralist Europe? The classical liberals and libertarians have often refused to ask this obvious and crucial question. They have been too politically correct. Or if some did research the issue they often became extreme conspiracy theorists who blamed Freemasons, monarchs, the Jesuits or even the Illuminati. Hardly ever did they dare to look at the most obvious suspect.
Jews have been international businessmen and bankers for over 2000 years. They often financed and supported kings, emperors and other rulers. Court Jews have existed for thousands of years. Many Jews have even bragged about this. They claim to have manipulated kings already in the time of ancient Persia and Egypt.
But Jews could not control militarist Rome and thus were literally kicked out of Palestine. They became a nation without a country but remarkably did not gradually assimilate and vanish but became even more powerful international businessmen and bankers. During the Early Middle Ages the Jews appear to have supported and financed both the Arab Muslim empire and the Christian empire of Charlemagne. After Charlemagne’s empire disintegrated into hundreds of small principalities the Western liberty was born. But then for a thousand years the Jews helped states become powerful and now largely control them through U$Srael.
This is all so obvious that even the Jewish professor, Benjamin Ginsberg admitted as much.
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.)
2. The ruling elite
The parasite theory of state is simple but how does the state function in practice? Again simple. The parasite state is run by a ruling elite that controls the most important organs of the state: Military, law, media and money. Traditionally kings controlled the military and law together with the aristocracy but they also allied themselves with leading priests and businessmen. This created a heritable caste society where a few dynasties of the unnatural ruling elite control the state and the monopoly economy.
The ruling elite maintains its power by brainwashing the people into false consciousness. This is done with a stick and carrot -method. First the ruler claims that resistance is both futile and sinful. This usually breaks the will of the people. Then the rulers claim that the people actually benefit from the protection and care provided by the state. This is why the rulers also give the people bread and circuses. Gradually both subsidies and democratization are increased and the people are divided into tax eaters and net tax payers. This creates a sort of Ponzi scheme where everybody is trying to live at the expense of everybody else. Everybody hopes to gain subsidies, monopolies and cartels privileges. Instead of fighting the state people join with it. The state and even the ruler himself becomes a God to be worshiped.
Nothing has really changed during the last 5000 years. In ancient times the control of the state was acquired with direct military power but gradually money became ever more powerful. This development was inevitable because a money economy is much more efficient than a barter economy. Thus who develops and controls money and banking eventually controls the state. This is also why the ruling elite became gradually less militaristic and now consists mainly of bankers. Thus also the Jews were gradually able to enter into the ruling elite though it often lead to the Fatal Embrace when other members of the ruling elite periodically attacked the Jews and threw them out of the elite and even out of the country. However, the Jews did not give up but always returned. Now those dynasties (Rothschilds and Rockefellers) who control the modern money machine (fractional reserve banking led by FED) also control not only the cartel economy and the media but also the state and its military.
The ruling elite has a tendency to evolve into dynastic rule because the members of the elite want to pass their power on to their kin. This is why banking dynasties are now more powerful than aristocratic dynasties though on many occasions they have joined forces in dynastic alliances. Banker dynasties are now often also aristocratic such as the ennobled Rothschilds.
3. The cycle of the rulers
The ruling elite is never stable. There is always competition not only from new entrants but also between the members of the ruling elite. Cartel theory explains how this competition creates a political cycle from freedom to rule of the few (aristocracy) to rule of the one (monarchy) to rule of the many (democracy) until society disintegrates and reverts to one of the earlier stages. Even democracy is tyranny because the state keeps on exploiting the people. However, at each stage the statist cycle can be broken with privatization and especially the privatization of land. It is the political ideas and actions that determine whether the cycle is broken or continues. A historian who understands the process can better evaluate those ideas and actions. He can also note how each step of the cycle tends to decrease liberty. He is not fooled by talk of democracy.
The statist cycle is also influenced by the Jews who as outsiders have different incentives from the other members of the ruling elite. Jews usually cannot become aristocrats and monarchs because the people would not accept that. Thus they have a vested interest to increase not only egalitarianism with the Culture of Critique and democratization with easily manipulated representative parliamentarism but also control it with the money machine. It is only through covert and invisible power that the Jews can take over the ruling elite and become the highest rulers.
4. Trend towards the world state
Cartel theory of the state also explains how states are always in conflict with each other because they not only want more people to exploit but also try to stop their victims from fleeing to other states. States are always in an eliminative competition. There is only war between the states and an inexorable drive towards ever bigger states and statist globalism.
The creation of a world state takes a long time and proceeds in steps. Furthermore, conquering states militarily is very expensive and can more effeciently be achieved with monetary imperialism that creates economic and political unification (USA, EU) and an hegemonic order (U$Srael) that will create a world currency and a central bank controlled by ruling elite dynasties such as the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. However, more and more interest groups will try to enter into the ruling elite. At some point the world hegemony becomes a democratic world state unless it breaks down before that.
The Jewish part of the ruling elite must necessarily become ever more powerful since they are best situated to run monetary imperialism not only through their diaspora network, banks and cartel economy but also justify it with their media power.
5. Trend towards centralization
Competition between states tends to limit their growth if people and capital can vote with their feet or passively or actively rebel against taxes and regulations. This can happen especially in relatively small states and decentralized political systems where people can change jurisdictions or use nullification, secessionism, privatization, alternative currencies and private arbitration. However, if the state parasite is not killed it will tend to inexorably grow by centralizing power away from individuals, private alternatives and more local and national governments. Cartel economy creates every bigger centralized globalist corporations until only a few dozen mega-corporations dominate the world economy.
Just as voluntary economic interaction tends to decentralize so all involuntary political action tends to centralize. As long as the state parasite exists the invisible hand serves it. The bigger the state the more centralized it will become until there is a world state with total centralization under a few globalist megacorporations, world parliament and global police state.
6. Trend towards The Culture of Critique
Centralization is hindered if people cling to their religion, property rights, traditional family values, small businesses, local self-rule and nationalism. It is in the interest of the ruling elite and the state to institute a Culture of Critique against traditional ideas and values. People are gradually brainwashed into relativism, individual atomism and cultural Marxism. The more centralization and the closer the world state the more intensive will be the Culture of Critique.
This process is further intensified by the Jews who have a vested interest to turn the Culture of Critique into a Philo-Semitic religion where anti-Semitism is the greatest sin.
7. The Business cycle
Increasing economic centralization and regulation decreases economic growth and may even stop it. However, the situation is even more dangerous. Centralization of the fractional reserve banking automatically leads to the intensification of inflation and the boom-bust business cycle that creates periodic economic depressions. Economy becomes ever more unstable. The ruling elite does its best to deflect the blame from the money machine. Jews have an important role in this obfuscation with their dominance over the universities and the media.
8. The Ratchet effect
The state grows fastest during economic depression and other real, imaginary or manufactured emergencies and crises such as wars, drug wars, war against terrorism, environmental and virus crises, etc. because it acquires extraordinary emergency powers. After the worst emergency only part of the emergency powers or the machinery to enforce them is given up. In other words, the state contracts but hardly ever to the same level as before the crises. Thus emergencies tend to help the state to grow into an ever bigger state and finally into a mega-state, Leviathan. This Ratchet effect can best be seen in imperialist states such as the USA.
9. The Paradox of Imperialism
Why is it that the most democratic and relatively free countries dominate the world? Does it not prove that people want to be under their benevolent rule? No. Their imperialism is just smarter. Paradox of Imperialism means that relatively more free states will have more resources and thus the capability to create a world hegemony. This takes place at their democratic stage. It is the economically relatively more free and democratic states such as Britain, Israel and USA that are trying to create a world hegemony. Monetary imperialism incentivizes these empires to come together into a global hegemony.
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.)
The liberal imperialist state has a strong military power but it uses it in a more indirect way by forcing other countries to use its currency. With this monetary imperialism the imperial power can create even more money out of nothing. This is exactly what America did after Second World War by making the dollar an international reserve currency. However, during Vietnam War it printed so much money that the value of dollar was sinking and threatening to crash the fractional reserve banking system. But then it created the petrodollar system together with Israel and Saudi Arabia. This created a further artificial demand for American dollars. Now it was possible to finance the hugely expensive military machine of U$Srael. If any country such as Iraq or Libya attempted to exit the petrodollar system and stop using dollars then it was destroyed. Now U$Srael rules the world.
B. The parasite theory of history
A historian who understands the parasite theory of the state and the consequent statist error cycle is not fooled by political propaganda but can correctly analyse history. At the same time he can also make political, ethical and moral judgments of various political movements and historical events by using these opposites:
Philosophy: Rationalism vs. relativism (historicism, empiricism, postmodernism)
Ethics: Natural law and argumentation ethics vs. ethical relativism (pragmatism, utilitarianism, nihilism)
Morality: Natural law and Scholastic Christianity vs. polytheism, Islam, Judaism, atheism, etc.
Propertarianism vs. interventionism (Fascism, state capitalism, corporatism, “third way”) and socialism
Natural order vs. statism
Church vs. state
Natural elite vs. unnatural (exploiting statist) elite
Liberty vs aristocracy – monarchy – democracy
Decentralism vs. centralism
Independence vs. unificationism
Secessionism vs. political federalism
Nationalism vs. globalism
Tax vs. political revolution
100% reserves vs. fractional reserve banking
Bank panic vs. bank holiday
Gold vs. paper money
Currency competition vs. monetary union
Cash vs. monopolist digital money
Neutrality vs. military alliances
Defensive war vs. offensive war
Multipolarism vs. U$Srael
All these political polar opposites are just aspects of the liberty or slavery -dualism. Their justification and effects are not dependent on time and place anymore than are robbing and enslaving. They give the historian a compass which helps him to see the direction of history. But it is still sometimes difficult because there are often countervailing processes at work. A monopoly might be eliminated but a tax increased. It is the task of the historian to evaluate the overall impact. The more general the history the more easy it is. When studying the history of the world or even the history of Europe it is quite easy to see the power of the state parasite growing for the last 800 years. We are now finally entering the final stage of a world police state.
The parasite theory of the state explains the general growth of the states but how to apply it to history in detail? Simple. Just apply the laws of economics and politics step by step starting from natural societies such as Europe after the fall of Rome. After the Germanic invasions things settled down and society became based on private landownership. For the next thousand years there was a battle between liberty and state. This is easy to see because the study of state does not essentially differ from the study of slavery. Therefore a historian can also make economic, ethical and moral judgments. History becomes a battle between truth and lies, good and evil, liberty and the state.
1. Natural order
Private property is natural. Every individual has a natural control over his own body. He then uses this body to homestead and produce material objects such as food and land. However, at the dawn of history an individual existed in small tribes. The majority of the members of the tribe were easily envious and aggressive. They often decided that all land and even all its produce belonged to the tribe. An individual tribe member could hardly resist this exploitation because he could not secede into the wilderness or put himself at the mercy of other hostile tribes. The original state of man was therefore primitive communism. But how then did private land ownership develop? There are three possibilities:
First, a conflict over scarce land leads to a search of new land. A tribe arrives to a new virgin land, divides the land among themselves and starts homesteading it. A free society of landowners develops spontaneously. The best example is Iceland which had a free society with private landownership and private arbitration for hundreds of years until they were conquered by the Norwegian kings. A similar process of homesteading seems to have transpired especially in Europe after the last Ice Age and continued until the discovery of Iceland, Greenland, Australia and America. It is this homesteading process that gave the Europeans a perfect example of liberty in practice.
Second, a tribe conquers a land by subjugating its previous inhabitants. The conquerors become a ruling caste and a hereditary aristocracy that tax and regulate the original inhabitants.
Third, gradually it becomes ever more difficult to find or conquer new land. Inter- and intratribal conflicts become ever worse until a ruling elite decides to start privatization. It is the threat of war that makes the majority of tribe members to realize that a propertarian order makes the tribe not only more prosperous but also technologically, numerically and militarily superior. Tribes that stubbornly stuck to communism are gradually conquered by more propertarian tribes.
No matter how private landownership is born in the long run private landowners become independent mini-countries. Since people can easily vote with their feet the competition between private landowners makes it ever more difficult to violate people’s rights. Even conquered land with aristocratic landowners gradually becomes a land of freedom. Private property inevitably leads to liberty.
2. Parasitic order
But how then can a state and tyranny become endemic? Why is it that states rule history? Why is it that in antiquity the states multiplied and eventually became great empires. And why is it that states were often internally unstable? The explanation is simple if one looks at it from the perspective of parasitic state. Cartel theory explains how the cycle of rulers proceeded in three steps:
2.1. Cartel of aristocratic parasites
Private landownership protects freedom. However, those less successful landowners who loose people to more successful landowners usually try to stop the emigration of people with force. They claim that the people owe them for protection and try to institute serfdom. Gradually the cartel of inefficient landowners becomes a cartel of parasitical aristocrats who convene in a council and decree various laws protecting serfdom.
2.2. Monopolist monarchical parasite
Aristocratic cartel is usually unstable because the more successful aristocrats want to break the political cartel. They even encourage the development of towns. Now even more people want to flee the less successful aristocrats who soon choose a king to uphold serfdom. The leader of an aristocratic cartel of parasites becomes the head parasite, a king. At the same time the king also gains more power over the aristocrats by gradually becoming the ultimate monopoly judge in disputes. The state is born. Gradually kings become more powerful and monarchy becomes hereditary. The king tries to turn the cartel of parasites into an absolutist monarchy.
2.3. Democratic parliament of short-lived parasites
The aristocrats often rebel against the king who then allies with commoners. He creates a higher chamber for the aristocrats and a lower chamber of parliament for various representatives of clergy, merchants and eventually even commoners. At the same time he organizes with them various monopolies and cartels which guarantee the king income while at the same time protects the merchants from economic competition. The support of the merchants and people makes the king an absolutist monarch but only in name because he is now alone against everybody else. If he tries to behave like a despot then not only the aristocrats but also the merchants and the people will rebel.
Parliament can easily get the upper hand if it promises to extend the vote. Gradually the suffrage is extended so that more and more people and interest groups are represented in the parliament. Soon parliament becomes so powerful that a democracy is declared. This makes the government very short-sighted. Democratic governments can usually stay in power only few years so they are in a hurry to grant various subsidies and cartel privileges for their supporters. Even if these politicians understand that the privileges for special interest groups are not good for the nation as a whole they do not care. They have to reward their own supporters because their competitors would do the same. A politician who thinks only about the interests of the nation is soon an ex-politician. It is steal as much as you can or be pushed to the side. Taxes, debt and regulations raise until the people suffer under neo-serfdom and finally the whole society descends into economic depression and civil war.
3. Anacyclosis theory of history
The theory of the parasitic development of the state resembles the ancient theory of anacyclosis:
The political doctrine of anacyclosis (or anakyklosis from Greek: ἀνακύκλωσις) is a cyclical theory of political evolution. The theory of anacyclosis is based upon the Greek typology of constitutional forms of rule by the one, the few, and the many. Anacyclosis states that three basic forms of “benign” government (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) are inherently weak and unstable, tending to degenerate rapidly into the three basic forms of “malignant” government (tyranny, oligarchy, and ochlocracy).
According to the doctrine, “benign” governments have the interests of all at heart, whereas “malignant” governments have the interests of a select few at heart. However, all six are considered unworkable because the first three rapidly transform into the latter three due to political corruption.
The idea of anacyclosis influenced theorists of republicanism. Some of them, including Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, Vico and Kant suggested that mixed government might help to stabilize republics and prevent permanent anacyclosis.
The ancients realized that there was something profoundly wrong with the state but they could not find a cure because they did not possess the full concept of freedom. They believed in a state where life was politics and most of the work was done by slaves. Only with the development of stoicism and Christianity was it possible to develop a detailed theory of liberty and the parasitic state.
4. Whig theory of history
It was the Whigs who turned the theory of anacyclosis into a theory of history by replacing the cycle with a positive trend. They saw freedom and feudalism as a time of stateless chaos where aristocrats exploited the people. Then kings helped states create order and more freedom. However, gradually kings became absolute rulers who enslaved the people again. Only with the help of parliaments and the gradual increase in democratic suffrage did people become more free. Finally the democratic state was born where all the people have a vote and are thus free.
Over hundred years of schooling and media propaganda has brainwashed people into this Whig theory of history. What if it is totally wrong? What if statelessness is freedom and feudalism was close to statelessness and therefore freedom? Then kings helped states grow which decreased freedom. Finally parliaments helped states grow even more until they totally destroyed liberty.
But how could that be? After all, the standard of living has been rising. Do not freedom and prosperity correlate? Only to an extent. In the long run freedom creates an efficient economy and high technology but in the short run a state can decrease freedom and still maintain relatively high living standards. An agricultural society like the High Medieval Iceland was totally free but its productivity was low because technology and international trade had not yet developed. Conversely North Korea is today richer than 200 years ago but much less free. This is only possible because it can enjoy not only the accumulated capital but also the higher technology developed by the relatively free West. However, North Korea has decreased liberty so much that it is barely able to keep its economy and technology going.
So a society can become richer even if it becomes less free to an extent. This is because people always try to better their lives. Even men burdened by parasites try to improve their lot and often succeed. Freedom can decrease even if prosperity increases. This is exactly what has happened during the last 1000 years.
5. Libertarian theory of history
With libertarian perspective it is easy to see that the Whig theory has everything backwards. This is not surprising since the Whigs were just trying to justify their rule. However, they did respect the property rights of the landowners to a large extent. This is also why England became the richest country of the world. But they did not understand the dangers of parliamentarism and thus unleashed the powers of representative democracy.
It would be anachronistic to blame people who helped to expand the power of the state. After all, the situation was often complicated. The king who tried to increase his power at the expense of a land owning aristocrats often did see aristocrats who abused their power by tyrannizing peasants. The king might really have believed that he has to create order out of “anarchic” chaos. However, we can still sympathize with those good aristocrats who protected the peasants and tried to limit the power of the king. It was these aristocrats that developed the highly important spirit of liberty in the West.
We can also sympathize with the absolutist kings who really wanted what was best for the nation and tried to stop democratization. The enlightened absolutist kings did want to defend the rights of their subjects against the cartellistic parliaments. They saw more clearly the common good. Even when they were militarist minded and wanted to increase taxes they realized that the subjects had to be milked carefully. Unlike democratic parliaments and governments who were in power only few years at a time the king saw the big picture. He did not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
But the kings lost the battle and now we have the worst of all systems: Representative democracy. It’s rob or be robbed. But full democracy has been in force already for a hundred years. How is that possible? Why have not the states collapsed into bankruptcy yet? Because the world order has been anarchic. There are over 200 parasites who compete with each other under semi-free world trade. This has greatly expanded international trade and made the rise of living standards possible.
Moreover, the economic and political competition has persuaded many state parasites to increase economic liberties. The Mongoloid tigers of Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan showed in practice the power of (relative) economic freedom. China took notice, abandoned Communism and experienced enormous economic growth. So did the Soviet Union that broke into pieces and the new free Russia emerged stronger than ever. All this has compensated the increasing centralism and socialism of the West.
But now the West is destroying the anarchic order. The European Union is destroying the great economies of the Europe. Even more dangerous is the petrodollar system that is subjugating all currencies and economies under the inflationary paper dollar. The fractional reserve banking system is close to collapse and the business cycle becomes ever more violent. The Covid-19 scamdemic is creating a police state and making the coming Great Depression even more disastrous. The anarchic world order is not being replaced by the tyrannical welfare-warfare police state, U$Srael. The parasite has grown too big. It will bring Western civilization and history itself to an end.
U$Srael will try to save itself by creating a world central bank and a hegemonic world police state that institutes a multicultural and anti-life New Green World Order where ignorance, poverty and slavery are seen as virtues.
6. The Great Man theory
The state has created a trend towards ever increasing interventionism that will finally create a global police state. But can the trend be stopped and even reversed? Yes. But it requires several things. First, the truth about the state and Jews must spread at least among the intellectual elite. Second, there must be enough courageous people who dare to oppose the state and now especially the hegemonic U$Srael. Third, the state must be temporarily weakened by economic depression and political crises such as secessionism. Only then the natural decentralist powers will break out and it is possible to destroy the state. This creates a watershed moment that requires great men who dare to take the decentralist forces so far that both the law and money monopoly can be destroyed.
In other words it is the social laws that largely determine the course of history. They are so powerful that single individuals cannot suddenly change the course of history. Even great military battles seldom change history because it is the underlying economic and political trends that are more important. In fact, it is the economic power and logistics which make great battles possible in the first place. However, single individuals can still influence the course of history with their philosophical, economic and political ideas and actions. The influence will be greatest at watershed moments when society has entered a crisis situation such as a Great Depression. In these moments even a single individual can change the course of history. After all, the emperor and his state has no clothes. Revealing the Ponzi schemes can create a domino effect that can fundamentally change the society and the course of history itself.
To reveal the big picture of history is relatively simple but at the same time it is important to know the details. It is especially important to understand how the Jews helped the state to grow into a global police state. It happened during several critical moments. Only by studying these watersheds of history is it possible to really understand both the history and the future of the parasite state. You have to understand the beast in order to kill it.
Or read the short version: