https://outline.com/VM2DEM submitted by
• 5,400 Words •
Today’s world is at war on many fronts. The rules of international law and order put in place toward the end of World War II are being broken by U.S. foreign policy escalating its confrontation with countries that refrain from giving its companies control of their economic surpluses. Countries that do not give the United States control of their oil and financial sectors or privatize their key sectors are being isolated by the United States imposing trade sanctions and unilateral tariffs giving special advantages to U.S. producers in violation of free trade agreements with European, Asian and other countries.
This global fracture has an increasingly military cast. U.S. officials justify tariffs and import quotas illegal under WTO rules on “national security” grounds, claiming that the United States can do whatever it wants as the world’s “exceptional” nation. U.S. officials explain that this means that their nation is not obliged to adhere to international agreements or even to its own treaties and promises. This allegedly sovereign right to ignore on its international agreements was made explicit after Bill Clinton and his Secretary of State Madeline Albright broke the promise by President George Bush and Secretary of State James Baker that NATO would not expand eastward after 1991. (“You didn’t get it in writing,” was the U.S. response to the verbal agreements that were made.)
Likewise, the Trump administration repudiated the multilateral Iranian nuclear agreement signed by the Obama administration, and is escalating warfare with its proxy armies in the Near East. U.S. politicians are waging a New Cold War against Russia, China, Iran, and oil-exporting countries that the United States is seeking to isolate if cannot control their governments, central bank and foreign diplomacy.
The international framework that originally seemed equitable was pro-U.S. from the outset. In 1945 this was seen as a natural result of the fact that the U.S. economy was the least war-damaged and held by far most of the world’s monetary gold. Still, the postwar trade and financial framework was ostensibly set up on fair and equitable international principles. Other countries were expected to recover and grow, creating diplomatic, financial and trade parity with each other.
But the past decade has seen U.S. diplomacy become one-sided in turning the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, SWIFT bank-clearing system and world trade into an asymmetrically exploitative system. This unilateral U.S.-centered array of institutions is coming to be widely seen not only as unfair, but as blocking the progress of other countries whose growth and prosperity is seen by U.S. foreign policy as a threat to unilateral U.S. hegemony. What began as an ostensibly international order to promote peaceful prosperity has turned increasingly into an extension of U.S. nationalism, predatory rent-extraction and a more dangerous military confrontation.
Deterioration of international diplomacy into a more nakedly explicit pro-U.S. financial, trade and military aggression was implicit in the way in which economic diplomacy was shaped when the United Nations, IMF and World Bank were shaped mainly by U.S. economic strategists. Their economic belligerence is driving countries to withdraw from the global financial and trade order that has been turned into a New Cold War vehicle to impose unilateral U.S. hegemony. Nationalistic reactions are consolidating into new economic and political alliances from Europe to Asia.
We are still mired in the Oil War that escalated in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq, which quickly spread to Libya and Syria. American foreign policy has long been based largely on control of oil. This has led the United States to oppose the Paris accords to stem global warming. Its aim is to give U.S. officials the power to impose energy sanctions forcing other countries to “freeze in the dark” if they do not follow U.S. leadership.
To expand its oil monopoly, America is pressuring Europe to oppose the Nordstream II gas pipeline from Russia, claiming that this would make Germany and other countries dependent on Russia instead of on U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG). Likewise, American oil diplomacy has imposed unilateral sanctions against Iranian oil exports, until such time as a regime change opens up that country’s oil reserves to U.S., French, British and other allied oil majors.
U.S. control of dollarized money and credit is critical to this hegemony. As Congressman Brad Sherman of Los Angeles told a House Financial Services Committee hearing on May 9, 2019: “An awful lot of our international power comes from the fact that the U.S. dollar is the standard unit of international finance and transactions. Clearing through the New York Fed is critical for major oil and other transactions. It is the announced purpose of the supporters of cryptocurrency to take that power away from us, to put us in a position where the most significant sanctions we have against Iran, for example, would become irrelevant.”
The U.S. aim is to keep the dollar as the transactions currency for world trade, savings, central bank reserves and international lending. This monopoly status enables the U.S. Treasury and State Department to disrupt the financial payments system and trade for countries with which the United States is at economic or outright military war.
Russian President Vladimir Putin quickly responded by describing how “the degeneration of the universalist globalization model [is] turning into a parody, a caricature of itself, where common international rules are replaced with the laws… of one country.” That is the trajectory on which this deterioration of formerly open international trade and finance is now moving. It has been building up for a decade. On June 5, 2009, then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev cited this same disruptive U.S. dynamic at work in the wake of the U.S. junk mortgage and bank fraud crisis.
Those whose job it was to forecast events … were not ready for the depth of the crisis and turned out to be too rigid, unwieldy and slow in their response. The international financial organisations – and I think we need to state this up front and not try to hide it – were not up to their responsibilities, as has been said quite unambiguously at a number of major international events such as the two recent G20 summits of the world’s largest economies.
Furthermore, we have had confirmation that our pre-crisis analysis of global economic trends and the global economic system were correct. The artificially maintained uni-polar system and preservation of monopolies in key global economic sectors are root causes of the crisis. One big centre of consumption, financed by a growing deficit, and thus growing debts, one formerly strong reserve currency, and one dominant system of assessing assets and risks – these are all factors that led to an overall drop in the quality of regulation and the economic justification of assessments made, including assessments of macroeconomic policy. As a result, there was no avoiding a global crisis.
That crisis is what is now causing today’s break in global trade and payments.
Warfare on many fronts, with Dollarization being the main arena
Dissolution of the Soviet Union 1991 did not bring the disarmament that was widely expected. U.S. leadership celebrated the Soviet demise as signaling the end of foreign opposition to U.S.-sponsored neoliberalism and even as the End of History. NATO expanded to encircle Russia and sponsored “color revolutions” from Georgia to Ukraine, while carving up former Yugoslavia into small statelets. American diplomacy created a foreign legion of Wahabi fundamentalists from Afghanistan to Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya in support of Saudi Arabian extremism and Israeli expansionism.
The United States is waging war for control of oil against Venezuela, where a military coup failed a few years ago, as did the 2018-19 stunt to recognize an unelected pro-American puppet regime. The Honduran coup under President Obama was more successful in overthrowing an elected president advocating land reform, continuing the tradition dating back to 1954 when the CIA overthrew Guatemala’s Arbenz regime.
U.S. officials bear a special hatred for countries that they have injured, ranging from Guatemala in 1954 to Iran, whose regime it overthrew to install the Shah as military dictator. Claiming to promote “democracy,” U.S. diplomacy has redefined the word to mean pro-American, and opposing land reform, national ownership of raw materials and public subsidy of foreign agriculture or industry as an “undemocratic” attack on “free markets,” meaning markets controlled by U.S. financial interests and absentee owners of land, natural resources and banks.
A major byproduct of warfare has always been refugees, and today’s wave fleeing ISIS, Al Qaeda and other U.S.-backed Near Eastern proxies is flooding Europe. A similar wave is fleeing the dictatorial regimes backed by the United States from Honduras, Ecuador, Colombia and neighboring countries. The refugee crisis has become a major factor leading to the resurgence of nationalist parties throughout Europe and for the white nationalism of Donald Trump in the United States.
Dollarization as the vehicle for U.S. nationalism
The Dollar Standard – U.S. Treasury debt to foreigners held by the world’s central banks – has replaced the gold-exchange standard for the world’s central bank reserves to settle payments imbalances among themselves. This has enabled the United States to uniquely run balance-of-payments deficits for nearly seventy years, despite the fact that these Treasury IOUs have little visible likelihood of being repaid except under arrangements where U.S. rent-seeking and outright financial tribute from other enables it to liquidate its official foreign debt.
The United States is the only nation that can run sustained balance-of-payments deficits without having to sell off its assets or raise interest rates to borrow foreign money. No other national economy in the world can could afford foreign military expenditures on any major scale without losing its exchange value. Without the Treasury-bill standard, the United States would be in this same position along with other nations. That is why Russia, China and other powers that U.S. strategists deem to be strategic rivals and enemies are looking to restore gold’s role as the preferred asset to settle payments imbalances.
The U.S. response is to impose regime change on countries that prefer gold or other foreign currencies to dollars for their exchange reserves. A case in point is the overthrow of Libya’s Omar Kaddafi after he sought to base his nation’s international reserves on gold. His liquidation stands as a military warning to other countries.
Thanks to the fact that payments-surplus economies invest their dollar inflows in U.S. Treasury bonds, the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit finances its domestic budget deficit. This foreign central-bank recycling of U.S. overseas military spending into purchases of U.S. Treasury securities gives the United States a free ride, financing its budget – also mainly military in character – so that it can taxing its own citizens.
Trump is forcing other countries to create an alternative to the Dollar Standard
The fact that Donald Trump’s economic policies are proving ineffective in restoring American manufacturing is creating rising nationalist pressure to exploit foreigners by arbitrary tariffs without regard for international law, and to impose trade sanctions and diplomatic meddling to disrupt regimes that pursue policies that U.S. diplomats do not like.
There is a parallel here with Rome in the late 1st century BC. It stripped its provinces to pay for its military deficit, the grain dole and land redistribution at the expense of Italian cities and Asia Minor. This created foreign opposition to drive Rome out. The U.S. economy is similar to Rome’s: extractive rather than productive, based mainly on land rents and money-interest. As the domestic market is impoverished, U.S. politicians are seeking to take from abroad what no longer is being produced at home.
What is so ironic – and so self-defeating of America’s free global ride – is that Trump’s simplistic aim of lowering the dollar’s exchange rate to make U.S. exports more price-competitive. He imagines commodity trade to be the entire balance of payments, as if there were no military spending, not to mention lending and investment. To lower the dollar’s exchange rate, he is demanding that China’s central bank and those of other countries stop supporting the dollar by recycling the dollars they receive for their exports into holdings of U.S. Treasury securities.
This tunnel vision leaves out of account the fact that the trade balance is not simply a matter of comparative international price levels. The United States has dissipated its supply of spare manufacturing capacity and local suppliers of parts and materials, while much of its industrial engineering and skilled manufacturing labor has retired. An immense shortfall must be filled by new capital investment, education and public infrastructure, whose charges are far above those of other economics.
Trump’s infrastructure ideology is a Public-Private Partnership characterized by high-cost financialization demanding high monopoly rents to cover its interest charges, stock dividends and management fees. This neoliberal policy raises the cost of living for the U.S. labor force, making it uncompetitive. The United States is unable to produce more at any price right now, because its has spent the past half-century dismantling its infrastructure, closing down its part suppliers and outsourcing its industrial technology.
The United States has privatized and financialized infrastructure and basic needs such as public health and medical care, education and transportation that other countries have kept in their public domain to make their economies more cost-efficient by providing essential services at subsidized prices or freely. The United States also has led the practice of debt pyramiding, from housing to corporate finance. This financial engineering and wealth creation by inflating debt-financed real estate and stock market bubbles has made the United States a high-cost economy that cannot compete successfully with well-managed mixed economies.
Unable to recover dominance in manufacturing, the United States is concentrating on rent-extracting sectors that it hopes monopolize, headed by information technology and military production. On the industrial front, it threatens to disrupt China and other mixed economies by imposing trade and financial sanctions.
The great gamble is whether these other countries will defend themselves by joining in alliances enabling them to bypass the U.S. economy. American strategists imagine their country to be the world’s essential economy, without whose market other countries must suffer depression. The Trump Administration thinks that There Is No Alternative (TINA) for other countries except for their own financial systems to rely on U.S. dollar credit.
To protect themselves from U.S. sanctions, countries would have to avoid using the dollar, and hence U.S. banks. This would require creation of a non-dollarized financial system for use among themselves, including their own alternative to the SWIFT bank clearing system. Table 1 lists some possible related defenses against U.S. nationalistic diplomacy.
As noted above, what also is ironic in President Trump’s accusation of China and other countries of artificially manipulating their exchange rate against the dollar (by recycling their trade and payments surpluses into Treasury securities to hold down their currency’s dollar valuation) involves dismantling the Treasury-bill standard. The main way that foreign economies have stabilized their exchange rate since 1971 has indeed been to recycle their dollar inflows into U.S. Treasury securities. Letting their currency’s value rise would threaten their export competitiveness against their rivals, although not necessarily benefit the United States.
Ending this practice leaves countries with the main way to protect their currencies from rising against the dollar is to reduce dollar inflows by blocking U.S. lending to domestic borrowers. They may levy floating tariffs proportioned to the dollar’s declining value. The U.S. has a long history since the 1920s of raising its tariffs against currencies that are depreciating: the American Selling Price (ASP) system. Other countries can impose their own floating tariffs against U.S. goods.
Trade dependency as an aim of the World Bank, IMF and US AID
The world today faces a problem much like what it faced on the eve of World War II. Like Germany then, the United States now poses the main threat of war, and equally destructive neoliberal economic regimes imposing austerity, economic shrinkage and depopulation. U.S. diplomats are threatening to destroy regimes and entire economies that seek to remain independent of this system, by trade and financial sanctions backed by direct military force.
Dedollarization will require creation of multilateral alternatives to U.S. “front” institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and other agencies in which the United States holds veto power to block any alternative policies deemed not to let it “win.” U.S. trade policy through the World Bank and U.S. foreign aid agencies aims at promoting dependency on U.S. food exports and other key commodities, while hiring U.S. engineering firms to build up export infrastructure to subsidize U.S. and other natural-resource investors. The financing is mainly in dollars, providing risk-free bonds to U.S. and other financial institutions. The resulting commercial and financial “interdependency” has led to a situation in which a sudden interruption of supply would disrupt foreign economies by causing a breakdown in their chain of payments and production. The effect is to lock client countries into dependency on the U.S. economy and its diplomacy, euphemized as “promoting growth and development.”
U.S. neoliberal policy via the IMF imposes austerity and opposes debt writedowns. Its economic model pretends that debtor countries can pay any volume of dollar debt simply by reducing wages to squeeze more income out of the labor force to pay foreign creditors. This ignores the fact that solving the domestic “budget problem” by taxing local revenue still faces the “transfer problem” of converting it into dollars or other hard currencies in which most international debt is denominated. The result is that the IMF’s “stabilization” programs actually destabilize and impoverish countries forced into following its advice.
IMF loans support pro-U.S. regimes such as Ukraine, and subsidize capital flight by supporting local currencies long enough to enable U.S. client oligarchies to flee their currencies at a pre-devaluation exchange rate for the dollar. When the local currency finally is allowed to collapse, debtor countries are advised to impose anti-labor austerity. This globalizes the class war of capital against labor while keeping debtor countries on a short U.S. financial leash.
U.S. diplomacy is capped by trade sanctions to disrupt economies that break away from U.S. aims. Sanctions are a form of economic sabotage, as lethal as outright military warfare in establishing U.S. control over foreign economies. The threat is to impoverish civilian populations, in the belief that this will lead them to replace their governments with pro-American regimes promising to restore prosperity by selling off their domestic infrastructure to U.S. and other multinational investors.
There are alternatives, on many fronts
Militarily, today’s leading alternative to NATO expansionism is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), along with Europe following France’s example under Charles de Gaulle and withdrawing. After all, there is no real threat of military invasion today in Europe. No nation can occupy another without an enormous military draft and such heavy personnel losses that domestic protests would unseat the government waging such a war. The U.S. anti-war movement in the 1960s signaled the end of the military draft, not only in the United States but in nearly all democratic countries. (Israel, Switzerland, Brazil and North Korea are exceptions.)
The enormous spending on armaments for a kind of war unlikely to be fought is not really military, but simply to provide profits to the military industrial complex. The arms are not really to be used. They are simply to be bought, and ultimately scrapped. The danger, of course, is that these not-for-use arms actually might be used, if only to create a need for new profitable production.
Likewise, foreign holdings of dollars are not really to be spent on purchases of U.S. exports or investments. They are like fine-wine collectibles, for saving rather than for drinking. The alternative to such dollarized holdings is to create a mutual use of national currencies, and a domestic bank-clearing payments system as an alternative to SWIFT. Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela already are said to be developing a crypto-currency payments to circumvent U.S. sanctions and hence financial control.
In the World Trade Organization, the United States has tried to claim that any industry receiving public infrastructure or credit subsidy deserves tariff retaliation in order to force privatization. In response to WTO rulings that U.S. tariffs are illegally imposed, the United States “has blocked all new appointments to the seven-member appellate body in protest, leaving it in danger of collapse because it may not have enough judges to allow it to hear new cases.” In the U.S. view, only privatized trade financed by private rather than public banks is “fair” trade.
An alternative to the WTO (or removal of its veto privilege given to the U.S. bloc) is needed to cope with U.S. neoliberal ideology and, most recently, the U.S. travesty claiming “national security” exemption to free-trade treaties, impose tariffs on steel, aluminum, and on European countries that circumvent sanctions on Iran or threaten to buy oil from Russia via the Nordstream II pipeline instead of high-cost liquified “freedom gas” from the United States.
In the realm of development lending, China’s bank along with its Belt and Road initiative is an incipient alternative to the World Bank, whose main role has been to promote foreign dependency on U.S. suppliers. The IMF for its part now functions as an extension of the U.S. Department of Defense to subsidize client regimes such as Ukraine while financially isolating countries not subservient to U.S. diplomacy.
To save debt-strapped economies suffering Greek-style austerity, the world needs to replace neoliberal economic theory with an analytic logic for debt writedowns based on the ability to pay. The guiding principle of the needed development-oriented logic of international law should be that no nation should be obliged to pay foreign creditors by having to sell of the public domain and rent-extraction rights to foreign creditors. The defining character of nationhood should be the fiscal right to tax natural resource rents and financial returns, and to create its own monetary system.
The United States refuses to join the International Criminal Court. To be effective, it needs enforcement power for its judgments and penalties, capped by the ability to bring charges of war crimes in the tradition of the Nuremberg tribunal. U.S. to such a court, combined with its military buildup now threatening World War III, suggests a new alignment of countries akin to the Non-Aligned Nations movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Non-aligned in this case means freedom from U.S. diplomatic control or threats.
Such institutions require a more realistic economic theory and philosophy of operations to replace the neoliberal logic for anti-government privatization, anti-labor austerity, and opposition to domestic budget deficits and debt writedowns. Today’s neoliberal doctrine counts financial late fees and rising housing prices as adding to “real output” (GDP), but deems public investment as deadweight spending, not a contribution to output. The aim of such logic is to convince governments to pay their foreign creditors by selling off their public infrastructure and other assets in the public domain.
Just as the “capacity to pay” principle was the foundation stone of the Bank for International Settlements in 1931, a similar basis is needed to measure today’s ability to pay debts and hence to write down bad loans that have been made without a corresponding ability of debtors to pay. Without such an institution and body of analysis, the IMF’s neoliberal principle of imposing economic depression and falling living standards to pay U.S. and other foreign creditors will impose global poverty.
The above proposals provide an alternative to the U.S. “exceptionalist” refusal to join any international organization that has a say over its affairs. Other countries must be willing to turn the tables and isolate U.S. banks, U.S. exporters, and to avoid using U.S. dollars and routing payments via U.S. banks. To protect their ability to create a countervailing power requires an international court and its sponsoring organization.
The first existential objective is to avoid the current threat of war by winding down U.S. military interference in foreign countries and removing U.S. military bases as relics of neocolonialism. Their danger to world peace and prosperity threatens a reversion to the pre-World War II colonialism, ruling by client elites along lines similar to the 2014 Ukrainian coup by neo-Nazi groups sponsored by the U.S. State Department and National Endowment for Democracy. Such control recalls the dictators that U.S. diplomacy established throughout Latin America in the 1950s. Today’s ethnic terrorism by U.S.-sponsored Wahabi-Saudi Islam recalls the behavior of Nazi Germany in the 1940s.
Global warming is the second major existentialist threat. Blocking attempts to reverse it is a bedrock of American foreign policy, because it is based on control of oil. So the military, refugee and global warming threats are interconnected.
The U.S. military poses the greatest immediate danger. Today’s warfare is fundamentally changed from what it used to be. Prior to the 1970s, nations conquering others had to invade and occupy them with armies recruited by a military draft. But no democracy in today’s world can revive such a draft without triggering widespread refusal to fight, voting the government out of power. The only way the United States – or other countries – can fight other nations is to bomb them. And as noted above, economic sanctions have as destructive an effect on civilian populations in countries deemed to be U.S. adversaries as overt warfare. The United States can sponsor political coups (as in Honduras and Pinochet’s Chile), but cannot occupy. It is unwilling to rebuild, to say nothing of taking responsibility for the waves of refugees that our bombing and sanctions are causing from Latin America to the Near East.
U.S. ideologues view their nation’s coercive military expansion and political subversion and neoliberal economic policy of privatization and financialization as an irreversible victory signaling the End of History. To the rest of the world it is a threat to human survival.
The American promise is that the victory of neoliberalism is the End of History, offering prosperity to the entire world. But beneath the rhetoric of free choice and free markets is the reality of corruption, subversion, coercion, debt peonage and neofeudalism. The reality is the creation and subsidy of polarized economies bifurcated between a privileged rentier class and its clients, their debtors and renters. America is to be permitted to monopolize trade in oil and food grains, and high-technology rent-yielding monopolies, living off its dependent customers. Unlike medieval serfdom, people subject to this End of History scenario can choose to live wherever they want. But wherever they live, they must take on a lifetime of debt to obtain access to a home of their own, and rely on U.S.-sponsored control of their basic needs, money and credit by adhering to U.S. financial planning of their economies. This dystopian scenario confirms Rosa Luxemburg’s recognition that the ultimate choice facing nations in today’s world is between socialism and barbarism.
Keynote Paper delivered at the 14th Forum of the World Association for Political Economy, July 21, 2019.
 Billy Bambrough, “Bitcoin Threatens To ‘Take Power’ From The U.S. Federal Reserve,” Forbes, May 15, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2019/05/15/a-u-s-congressman-is-so-scared-of-bitcoin-and-crypto-he-wants-it-banned/#36b2700b6405
 Vladimir Putin, keynote address to the Economic Forum, June 5-6 2019. Putin went on to warn of “a policy of completely unlimited economic egoism and a forced breakdown.” This fragmenting of the global economic space “is the road to endless conflict, trade wars and maybe not just trade wars. Figuratively, this is the road to the ultimate fight of all against all.”
 Address to St Petersburg International Economic Forum’s Plenary Session, St Petersburg, Kremlin.ru, June 5, 2009, from Johnson’s Russia List, June 8, 2009, #8,
. Already in the late 1950s the Forgash Plan proposed a World Bank for Economic Acceleration. Designed by Terence McCarthy and sponsored by Florida Senator Morris Forgash, the bank would have been a more truly development-oriented institution to guide foreign development to create balanced economies self-sufficient in food and other essentials. The proposal was opposed by U.S. interests on the ground that countries pursuing land reform tended to be anti-American. More to the point, they would have avoided trade and financial dependency on U.S. suppliers and banks, and hence on U.S. trade and financial sanctions to prevent them from following policies at odds with U.S. diplomatic demands.
 Don Weinland, “WTO rules against US in tariff dispute with China,” Financial Times, July 17, 2019. https://xenagoguevicene.wordpress.com/2019/07/29/u-s-economic-warfare-and-likely-foreign-defenses-by-michael-hudson-%e2%80%a2-23-july-2019/
Back in the old days of Renaissance Europe, the continent's most creative and free-thinking individuals practiced their experiments in secret. Why was this? Quite simple: You didn't want anyone to know about what you know. For people to know of your occult knowledge was profoundly dangerous. A duke in debt might capture you and expect you to turn base metals into gold for him. Your neighbors would be scared that something might go wrong in your alchemical laboratory and toxic fumes might be released or worse. Read the old manuscripts of those times and you'll find an abundance of warnings to be careful and to avoid letting anyone know you're carrying out alchemical experiments.
At the end of the day, people simply aren't very comfortable with the occult. As a teenager, I would go into new age stores with a friend and ask for a Ouija board. They were unwilling to sell us one, because they believed it could channel destructive influences. If I told people about it, they would respond by telling me not to involve myself in such matter. Similarly, if you're a prominent businessman or politician, who bases his decisions on the position of the stars or a psychic's judgment, the public's response won't be positive. As a result, the occult remains occult.
For a society where the occult wasn't as occult
, consider Classical Rome. Here it was common to make sacrifices to the Genius of the Roman emperor. Divination was common practice too, augurs were appointed by the government and tasked with keeping track of the behavior of birds, which was thought to reflect the will of the Gods. Many Renaissance occultists are referred to as Neoplatonists, precisely because they revived ideas and practices that were common in the Classical world. The Hermetic teachings they revived were originally a kind of folk Platonism. It wasn't uncommon for Renaissance occultists to invoke the name of Roman deities when the performed their rituals.
It's important to note that this mentality towards the world was violently eradicated. The Christians thrown before the lions are part of our collective cultural mythos, but the brutal death of Hypatia at the hands of a Christian mob was a much more shocking and better documented event to people who lived at the time. The Platonic academies didn't die out because people simply lost interest. Successive Roman emperors had to deal with a resurgent Greco-Roman polytheism whenever the barbarians at the gates delivered the surviving native heathen Roman population a breathing pause. It was around 850 AD, more than fifty years after Charlemagne invaded Saxony and more than four centuries after Christianity became the Roman state religion, when the last Greeks of Laconia were forcibly converted to Christianity. You can rest assured that heathenism survived in various forms throughout the empire, behind closed doors and in allegorical myths and manuscripts.
The current proliferation of Marxist philosophies across the Western world has a few analogies with the original proliferation of Christianity in the Western world. From what we know , the unimaginable cruelty of Marxists has no known analogy in early Christianity. In both cases however, an anti-establishment philosophy developed by intellectuals proliferated among a militant impoverished underclass that had little left to live for. Lenin's cannon fodder and Muhammed's suicide-bombers have a similar mentality to Christian slaves who sought martyrdom by preaching their creed to Roman soldiers.
In both cases, the inversion of cultural values leads to a stage of ignorance of natural order that's taught to people. The Marxist utopia where the family no longer exists, children are raised by the state and men and women work of all colours and creeds work together in harmony in a factory requires us to forget what we intuitively know about human nature. The pacifism of Jesus and the denial of the desires of the flesh similarly asks of us to suppress and reject our human nature.
Heathenism in both cases represents a threat that refuses to go away. Just as Christians were always dealing with a resurgent heathenism, Marxist societies are always dealing with a resurgent heathenism of a different form. There will always be men who feel possessive towards their daughter or sister, there will always be women who seek out powerful masculine men, there will always be racists who desire to live among people similar to them, and there will always be people who wonder what happens after death and how matter can experience qualia. Just as people don't need books or cultural traditions to look towards birds in the sky to seek out insight into the will of the transcendental, people don't need books or racist cartoon frog memes to reject the Marxist cultural orthodoxy taught to them in the media and in colleges.
The thing to understand is that when you reject the orthodoxy, you gain access to secret knowledge obscured to the masses. It can be beneficial to have access to such secret knowledge. The value of knowledge increases tremendously, as the share of the population that's aware declines. Tremendous wealth, happiness and power can be gained from knowledge obscured to the masses. If you think carefully, you already know this. When was the right time to buy Bitcoin? When nobody knew about it. When was the worst time to buy Bitcoin? When people began to take it seriously. This simple principle applies in many different aspects of life.
Of course, there is a lot of secret knowledge out there that's utterly useless. Most conspiracy theories are forms of occult knowledge, but the greatest occult knowledge of all might be the simple fact that it won't change your life when you can prove beyond a doubt who killed JFK or knocked down the World Trade Center. When Dick Cheney is thrown in jail he'll spend four months there before his last heart attack puts him out of his misery and after a pat on the shoulder from your boss who never believed you you'll have to go back to filing your TPS reports.
There is greater, more useful occult knowledge out there. Consider that all of the crazy people on the Internet used to talk about the health benefits of cannabis, back when the plant was still illegal. If you look into such a subject, you'll eventually come to the conclusion that you won't just be able to keep your two year old child from dying of brain cancer, but the prohibition of cannabis ultimately won't be sustainable. Eventually, cannabis will be legalized and a massive economic sector will emerge from nothing. A wise man would position himself to make use of that eventual outcome. Perhaps you start out by growing medicinal hemp, or you invest in a cannabis company a friend of you hopes to set up. You knew something most people didn't. Wise people quietly make use of that knowledge. Less wise people post it to their Facebook wall.
The key to secret knowledge is to share it with the right people. If you know something others don't, you will generally need others, to help you make use of that knowledge. Important in the process is to ensure that you don't inform the wrong people. If the secret gets out, the secret becomes useless. Just because you teach people how to do something better, doesn't mean that everyone will benefit. If I design a better weapon, I don't want my enemies to find out. Similarly, if I design a more efficient Bitcoin miner, my knowledge becomes useless when others find out about it too. Most secret knowledge can only create a better world by virtue of the power it gives to the wise person who discovers the knowledge.
One of my favorite thinkers of the 21st century, Peter Thiel, explained this concept in his book "from zero to one". What you should strife for is not to do something better than the competition. What you should strife for is to do something entirely new. Create something that didn't exist before, or make use of something nobody recognized as useful. Since the 1970's, we've lived in a world where we don't really do new things. We do old things slightly better. According to Thiel, this is largely a cultural problem, the result of our faith in what he calls "indefinite optimism". We believe that the world will inevitably blindly pursue greater economic growth and thereby bring about a kind of utopia.
What we need instead, is a kind of "definite optimism". Definite optimism involves making bold, specific plans for the future, and taking risks to fulfill them. What definite optimists do is to create entire new options that didn't exist before. When you create something entirely new, you are capable of developing a monopoly, if you know what you're doing. When you develop such a monopoly, you gain access to true wealth and the power to make genuine changes to how we live our lives.
There are differing degrees of secrecy. Some people make discoveries that they proceed to keep entirely to themselves. Most of the things we learn however, are simply things that are still under the radar. This is fine. You don't need sole ownership of your secret. If the implications of your secret are big enough, there is room for multiple people to make use of it. What matters ultimately, is that you gain knowledge about something your peers don't know about. To succeed, you have to go against the grain.
I often see the claim that there are diminishing returns to innovation, that we are running out of new ideas to discover. In some domains this may be true. Benjamin Franklin could perform innovative physics experiments on his own, whereas today we need the Large Hadron Collider for us to discover new knowledge. What is not mentioned however, is that innovation creates new niches of its own. It doesn't matter if you can't continue to build upon a branch of knowledge, when entirely new branches of knowledge are available to you. Consider an example. We now need genetic manipulation and a growing arsenal of pesticides, to boost our agricultural yields. But why are we trying to boost our yields, if we could eat entirely different things?
When I look at our human relationship to the natural world around us, what I witness is horizontal expansion. We witness nature, we observe its fertile soils and we seek to gain control over them. Eventually, we end up fighting each other over control of those soils. What this is, is our competition to conform. We have killed the apex predators and now we wish to live as if we were them. There is no serious attempt made at vertical expansion, to do something entirely new.
Consider the simple fact, that we effectively live as we always have, but now with more energy. We have machines that plow our soils for us and grow a variety of cereal grains. We then feed those plants to our livestock and proceed to eat the animals. This is what most of the world's terrestrial surface is now used for. We even witness the same problem as we did in the medieval era, when bottom trawlers would harvest fish from the bottom of the ocean, in such abundant amounts that they had no genuine use for them other than to feed them to their livestock.
The mistake we have to avoid, is to resort to a kind of hopeless cynicism in the face of this reality. As Thiel puts it, "If everything worth doing has already been done, you may as well feign an allergy to achievement and become a barista". This is a mistake. Besides the simple fact that it makes your own life miserable, it's simply a philosophical mistake. The future is not a deterministic trajectory in which we blindly pursue the maximum power principle until we render the planet uninhabitable. We're not a chemical reaction that ran out of control. We have the power to change the trajectory of the future. One way to do this, is by planning for the future in an intelligent manner.
Consider the simple fact, that as Africa's population is exponentially growing, Russia, China, Brazil, Japan and many other places face declining fertility rates. Iran's fertility rate took a decade to plunge. These places are clearly not subject to the maximum power principle. Growth has stalled, despite plenty of resources that could be utilized, if people were willing to reproduce. If we can escape the maximum power principle in Russia, why not at a global level? An African cultural transition could bring about the same collapse in fertility rates that we have seen in most of the world. There exist strong cultural barriers towards low fertility rates, but those barriers can be forcefully torn down. Consider the complete annihilation of the phenomenon of the fertile Catholic working class in Europe. A similar outcome is possible in Africa, if we make the right decisions.
More importantly, a cultural transition inspired by new technologies can help us reign down our impact on the natural world. An estimated seventy percent of arable land worldwide is used for the production of meat in one form or another. If we transitioned to meat grown in labs, we could get rid of this problem, as lab grown meat requires 99% less land use. We could add to this the consumption of seaweed and mushrooms. In Japan, 10% of the diet was historically composed of seaweed. Mushrooms can similarly be grown using very little physical space. The amount of physical land needed to feed a human being is much smaller than we imagine it to be. It simply depends on how we choose to live.
Important to note is that this won't cause an overpopulation crisis. We witness today that countries with an abundance of food don't suffer from excessive population growth. People don't continue to reproduce until they die of hunger as if they were rabbits. Places that suffer famines do so because they rely on a limited range of crops vulnerable to weather disruption or suffer from political instability. Humans who live in big cities tend to have few children. The natural tendency for the human population is thus to eventually decline, provided that urbanization continues at an accelerating pace. As people migrate to cities, the rural countryside ends up reforested. The total amount of global rainforest is thought to be increasing
, because third world people are migrating from the countryside to the big cities, where they generally fail to reproduce. As a result, their rural farmland ends up abandoned, allowing new forests to emerge there.
The most important thing to understand is that the intelligent pursuit of specific technologies allows us to create the kind of conditions that lead to the decline of our human impact on the environment around us. This does not just apply to food. We are capable of producing cement that sequesters carbon dioxide. In addition to this, we are capable of shrinking our car fleet by 99%
, when we transition to self-driving cars. You will find that most of our oil and other fossil fuels will be left in the ground, because we will not be able to come up with any good use for it. Why would you bother driving a car that runs on oil, if you can drive around using electricity? The internal combustion engine moves you around through a series of small explosions. This is why cars are in need of constant repairs. An electric vehicle in comparison will end up having a much longer lifetime.
What is important to understand, is that these developments depend on one thing: The persistence of a cognitive elite within our population that is able to pursue its talents without restraint. Consider this: Google engineers who are fired because they write politically incorrect memos are not able to deliver a contribution to society. In the words of Peter Thiel: "Today's aged hippies no longer understand that there is a difference between the election of a black president and the creation of cheap solar energy; in their minds, the movement towards greater civil rights parallels general progress everywhere". Winston Churchill believed in the 1930's that lab-grown meat would come into existence within the next fifty years. Why didn't that happen? Because of the cultural climate that has emerged.
There are societies out there that went from awe inspiring innovation and creativity, towards a permanent stasis in a form of barbarous stupidity. The Middle East is a prominent example. After the Mongols destroyed Baghdad, the Islamic world descended into a spiral of increasing regressiveness, until eventually we reached the worst depths imaginable with the rise of movements like ISIS. Muslims make up 23% of the world's population, but just 1.4% of Nobel prize winners. Most of their prizes are peace prizes, which are awarded to them for accomplishments in standing up to the stupidity that characterizes the rest of their society. This isn't the innate unchanging state of Muslims, it is the consequence predominantly of a cultural transition that has been hugely destructive.
In the Western world, the rise of Marxism has similarly had a hugely destructive impact on our ability to face the challenges of the 21st century. We see today that Western Europe and the United States are descending into the kind of stifled intellectual climate that has characterized Eastern Europe for most of the 20th century. Whereas Eastern Europe is hard at work shredding the last traumatic memories of this dark era, in Western Europe and North America, no genuine accomplishments are made now, except for petty human rights issues.
Consider that in the Soviet Union, genetics was considered a "bourgeois pseudoscience". Whereas here in Western Europe and North America, we learned how biology functions, in the Soviet Union, authorities believed that rye could spontaneously transform in wheat and wheat into barley, or that weeds could spontaneously transform into nutritious plants. Today we see that here in the modern Western world, we believe that humans can become anything as long as they are "educated". Whereas a deeper understanding of genetics would allow us to look with a sense of realism towards the prospect of places like Detroit, Baltimore and Puerto Rico, today we pretend that throwing seven times the entire annual foreign aid budget for Africa at Puerto Rico will somehow end its poverty. Just as political correctness prevented the Soviet Union from pursuing meaningful accomplishments, political correctness ensures that here in the Western world we will end up living in third world countries.
Although our intellectual climate is oppressive, this should not prevent you from pursuing your full intellectual potential. If you are intelligent and capable of pursuing a strong vision, you are capable of rising up above the mediocrity, even though we live in a society where we expect everyone to adjust to the lowest common denominator. What it all starts out with, is a secret. There are hard problems out there, problems that take a lot of effort to solve, to which only a small minority of our population has answers. To come up with an answer to such a problem allows you to garner tremendous concentrated wealth and power for yourself, which can be used to change society for the better. Upon discovering your secret, the next step becomes to gather a group of people, who will conspire with you to change the world. Ask yourself: What do you know that most smart people don't?
Not quite bitcoin. Given the restrictions of a Sharia-compliant financial system, including the prohibition on riba, cryptocurrencies have been touted as potential alternatives. Bitcoin does something similar, where an address is similar to your physical wallet. A single address may have multiple utxos linked to it. The balance for that address is the sum of all the utxos. The key thing here is that bitcoin only tracks unspent transaction outputs. Thus, to arrive at the balance for the address, it just needs to iterate ... Our research on Bitcoin and Blockchain technology, is based solely on rationality and objectivity. It won't only help the internet community to decide whether or not to trust cryptocurrencies but it will also educate everyone about the second biggest scam in the history of mankind after paper currencies.. Both scams are engineered ideas of one common global organization that we will expose ... Bitcoin Debit Card No Verification - Bitcoin Rationalwiki Bitcoin Debit Card No Verification Bitcoin Denominations Bitcoin Private Key Github So the Bitcoin community doesn't like the hard fork that would be necessary to change the relationship of satoshi to bitcoin. That doesn't mean it is impossible, any more than it was impossible to change the relationship of pennies to pounds. In 1970, the British government did exactly that. It "decimalised" the currency. The penny became 1/100 of a pound, and the shilling was eliminated along ...
Zombie Popcorn is a mixed bag of entertainment, contests, Zombie Popcorn podcasts / netcasts and politics. Home to the Zombie Popcorn blog and netcasts like;... We are moving into spiritually dark times and the end is near, but many are unprepared. "We have never been closer to the end than today," says Pastor Greg. ... Report Shows Increased Hostility toward Christians across Europe Mike S Miller POBox 851 Spring Valley, CA 91976 Sub to me on D-Live: https://dlive.tv/Blackl... (Round 8) The Elephant Room footage that sparked so much controversy earlier this decade is capturing attention once more. Is this a hint that a new series o... All you should know before joining a Data Entry Job - Entry Level,Database,WPM, Data Management . by Freshersworld.com. 4:42