The West pretty much cut its own throat when it embraced Thatcherism and Reaganism. Rather than restrain Capitalism it restrained the general public and allowed the predators full reign so the government no longer did anything for you but started to do things to you.
The political process came to be all that mattered and anything beyond that was wished away.
In Australia the current government is trying to sort out new environmental standards and safeguards.
Does it talk to people who are activated by the endless environmental destruction that has occurred here over the last several decades of Thatcherism and make an attempt to stop the ongoing collapse?
No it does not. It wants to do a deal with people that don't give a rats arse about the environment but are their political opposition, so they are looking at the barest of anything for the political fix, so they won't be outflanked.
The current opposition will be lucky to survive as a political entity as their internal contradictions tear the thing apart, but Labor would rather do a deal with this clusterfuck than start to address the ongoing environmental catastrophe.
This attitude is what dooms the West. Serious matters have been submerged in a political game between protagonists who don't care one way or the other as to how the results play out.
All true, but this isn't suicide for the West, but rather its surrender to the growing trend of collectivism. When this happens, socialism will evolve into something that values business, freedom, profit, and so on.
The North, East, and South await the return of the West, which possesses special skills, to the common family.
"surrender to the growing trend of collectivism" - this is a strange remark. Provide some proof - if you have any. The economic basis of the 'west' is as it always has been - 'socialism' for the rich and 'capitalism' - of the most extreme kind, for the rest
I admit that many of the formulations are sloppy. Sorry.
Collectivism in the context of this conversation, is an investment system that competes with banks. It has been used in various eras: by primitive communities, Eastern empires, the medieval church, and the USSR/China.
– The strength of banks (moneylenders/Zionists): centuries-old ability to predict + exploitation of society's craving for commerce.
– The strength of collectivism: the native integration of financing into the organization, thereby saving on presentations, banking infrastructure, risks, searching for fraudsters, etc.
And now to the requested proof... To finance something large and complex, like a green economy or complex gas turbines, it's much more convenient to use collectivism. Big attracts big. Conversely, the smaller and simpler the business, the more attractive banks are. Small attracts small.
In other words, there's a clear correlation between the increasing complexity of the economy and the success of collectivism. It's like discovering a new law of nature.
At the same time, we know that all of history has been a trend toward increasing complexity. Accordingly, according to the stated law, this is a trend toward increasing collectivization.
We currently have a certain balance. As you yourself have noticed, a combination of socialism (collectivity) and capitalism (banks). And this, as we see, is in crisis. So it's time to change the balance to pure collectivism. This won't be socialism, but something new, one that takes into account the interests of business.
"something new, one that takes into account the interests of business."
We already have something that 'takes into account the interests of business'. It seems to be doing that very well - in fact to an excessive degree. It's the interests and welfare of the mass of the population that needs to be taken into account, and that would be an innovative step forwards. See the writings of Karl Marx and others for more information.
It's nice to receive a reference to Marx, as my thoughts seem to continue his trend in the development of historicism. I consider his insight into dividing progress into five stages to be brilliant.
But I hope you agree that there are some changes that need to be made to Marxist theory?
Yes, absolutely. A lot has happened that Marx could not foresee. But changes must involve accommodating capitalism only as a tool for the equal advancement of all, not as a weapon for the few.
"the West"? Who do you mean by the 'the west'? Just because the majority of the population(s) didn't do very well, doesn't mean that the already wealthy or well connected did not. In fact, they were the intended benificiaries.
Liberalism isn't about being kind to puppy dogs - it's about allowing the market to reign supreme. It is curious the way that the notion has been hijacked and given a social rather than an economic definition. But it sowed the seeds of rot within the socialist movement in which identity politics (meant to counter traditional 'social' definitions of Liberalism) were uneasily grafted on to class politics, so that we now see issues such as sexual orientation being ones that define political parties rather than these being the subject of personal choice/ preference.
I think the old Liberal tradition of personal liberty was a valid one that we should go back to (while acknowledging that historically the roots of this have more to do with economic rather than social pressures).
That digression apart, it seems to me that the only way to counter the increasing concentration of wealth is to reassert the priority of class politics and subject (rather than relegate) 'identity politics' to legal protection about personal choices. In other, words we have laws that protect an individuals right to do whatever they like so long as it doesn't harm others (the Roy Jenkins approach), but would not deem it necessary to include the wide array of what are frequently contentious and contradictory social declarations in a manifesto. Class politics are important because it really is the rich against the rest. Politics should get back to being about economics.
'Politics' is not about 'economics' - politics is about the management of a country to (theoretically) benefit all of its population - economics is merely a sub-set of this. There are many other aspects to consider - unless you are a US citizen, in which case you are correct.
Economics is NOT a sub set. It is the basis for everything. It's the reality that frames everything. Without production the human species is nothing. That's why we have to control the economy and not leave it up to 'the market'.
So you ARE a US citizen. Your viewpoint is crude and materialistic. Of course everyone needs sufficient food, shelter and water - that's a given. But life is about so much more than that. People with a sufficiency of basic needs but who are allowed no real meaningful life beyond that very often sicken and die, (e.g. some Pacific islanders) while those with a reason for living can survive even when relatively deprived. To focus everything on 'economics' is to do what the Bible called 'worshipping the Golden Calf'. How much 'production' did the Kalahari bushmen indulge themselves in? The answer is 'none'. They spent a few hours hunting and gathering, then a much larger number of hours dancing and singing and interacting with each other - because that is what is really important to humanity.
However, I certainly agree with you that the 'market' should not be allowed anywhere near the necessities of life, and that the economy should be controlled. But the economy is still just a tool for the furtherance of enjoyment and mind expansion.
"the Chinese Communist Party.. promises to do things, and it generally delivers".
What's more, the things it does must always have been field-tested in a province then won the support of two-thirds of the Chinese people. Winning that support can take decades–as it did with the Three Gorges project.
1. "The tremendous concentration of wealth in a tiny number of hands does not, in the end, benefit anyone very much. The rich have more money than they can spend, but they are generally loathed and detested, and they are not even very skilful at parlaying that wealth into political power, assuming that is what they want. A society collapsing around them can no longer provide them with the mundane requirements of everyday life: it’s hard to get cleaners and gardeners and chauffeurs and even helicopter pilots when they can’t afford to live nearby, and in most big cities restaurants close early, or don’t open every day because they can’t get staff, or because security is getting worse with unemployment and poverty increasing and reductions in local and national government services. In a deeply unequal society everybody, including the rich, suffers from worse health and lower life-expectancy. "
Whatever next? The West is turning into a sort of lopsided Brasil, albeit with less attractive females, fewer mosquitos, and a more hyperbelligerent foreign policy.
The situation in Brasil suits the elites in Brasil just dandy. Sure the masses loathe them and would kill them as soon as they got the chance, but the elites have the police, army and private security to handle the poors. Besides, they have no shortage of cleaners, helicopter pilots, private bodyguards, etc., and if the elites in the West are dissatisfied with the increasing Brasilianification of their countries, they sure are strangely quiet about it.
2. Political parties in Western countries are not collapsing. Rather, they are enjoying increasing little support, even as they continue to dominate election results and, consequently, governments.
This also suits the parties and their bosses just fine. It doesn't matter if, for example, Labour wins a given by-election with only 15% voter turnout, as long as they win. The MP's vote counts just the same as any other MP.
Of course, the reason that fewer people support mainstream western parties is because it is abundantly obvious that none of these parties has anything to offer the average frustrated voter, just as the much ballyhooed "decline of the experts" stems from the fact that the experts have proven to be entirely self-serving.
From the point of view of the party bosses or the elites who control them, who cares? Whether the government or party is popular or not is irrelevant, as long as orders given in that government's name are carried out.
If that means that democracy has to be cancelled or curtailed, so what? The masses go along with barely a peep of protest.
A very interesting and important analysis of the current political stasis and and its uniformity of political class and interests. But referencing the apolitical character of Starmer an empty vacillating individual with few or no convictions how to explain his psychopathic obsession with the Ukraine Proxy War and his personal need to support and fund it to the trigger point of WW3? The damascene conversion of this cardboard politician into a war hungry militaristic nightmare a threat to our very existence defies credibility but I see no explanation in your analysis of political class to suggest the emergence of such absolute extremism!
Prime minister has no intention of going to war with Russia, much less provoking nuclear bombs on himself. The goal is to rob the eastern giant. And if that doesn't work, then at least distract the electorate from problems. It's all quite businesslike.
Brilliant! My take on liberalism is that it was a product of the Enlightenment and placed in service to dismantle the feudal system. As such, it gave birth to capitalism and communism as well (there is a straight line from Adam Smith to Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin). Thus liberalism is hardly static and changes dialectically. In the 1980s, the transformation was to New Liberalism, or neoliberalism, and it would be hardly recognizable to an 18th century activist. So now, Liberalism isn't liberal and neither is its heir, Neoliberalism.
There is indeed a straight line from the actual writings of Adam Smith to Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin - but not from the Adam Smith who writing is selectively quoted from yesterday and today. So 'liberalism' really has very little to do with any of these three. Liberalism also is in fact still 'liberal' - that's where its power to destroy comes from - the atomisation of morality, ethics, solidarity, religion and everything else which acts as a binding force in society.
My conception of 'liberalism' differs from yours, obviously. You seem to describe what I referred to as neoliberalism, which, as I said, is not liberal. In my understanding, there was a bifurcation after liberalism's creation of capitalism. Liberal capitalism of the bourgeoisie did not evolve, while liberal socialism did.
Liberalism certainly emerged thanks to the Enlightenment, but why did it give rise to capitalism?
According to scholarly consensus, it gradually emerged with the Renaissance and the Reformation. The first capitalists were Venetian manufacturers. 16th century.
Capitalism was central to the defeat of feudalism, and I am surprised you don't recognize its liberal elements. To this day, the rightwing equates capitalism with freedom, such as the Libertarians.
The origin of capitalism is a major debate among historians and economists, but the Venice connection does not tick enough of the 'capitalism' boxes, while the English Enclosures do. See THE ORIGINS OF CAPITALISM: A LONGER VIEW, Ellen Meiksins Wood, for capitalism in England.
Of course, capitalism originally had a liberal element, but which of the two is primary? Google AI confirms that most theorists assume the primacy of capitalism.
This makes a lot of sense.
Liberalism is capitalism under the conditions of the emergence of nations after bourgeois revolutions (especially the French Revolution).
Freedom of enterprise arose with capitalism. This is what libertarians point to. But there's one caveat: who will finance business? This can be done by the state itself, through the intelligence of its officials, and by business itself, from its savings. Not very convenient, but quite economical and pleasing to God, since the immorality of usurers is still palpable.
And so, liberalism distinguished itself by riding the wave of resistance to this conservative trend: it advocates free enterprise without exceptions for credit. In other words, according to it, no one should resist the central role of banks in financial matters. Super-freedom.
The compensation was public control of banks through their subordination to the Central Bank. And neoliberalism is about the idea that even this kind of control is unnecessary. Ultra-freedom. Under these new conditions, banks are inventing fiat currencies, and the train is gradually starting to derail.
Yes. Capitalism is the fruit of liberalism as is communism. However, you overdo liberal capitalism. Adam Smith was very much an advocate of capitalism and markets, but few actually read him, especially where he states that markets should be free (liberal) of financial rent and monopolies and other malign influences. To create such a market requires a state willing to eschew profit and apply regulation. So Adam Smith is not in any way a Libertarian.
As for fiat money, it is not created by banks. Banks are state-licensed and regulated. Loans must be repaid or the bank would be out of business, so if you consider a bank loan created-money, that money is destined to be extinguished.
Like all money, fiat money is a creation of the State and this has been true since the beginning of civilization. The State creates money to provision itself and to achieve social and political goals. This money passes through the economy and some of it ends up as bank reserves (someone's savings). The State then taxes excess money out of existence, achieving more political goals along the way. Without sufficient taxes, money would clog the streets and alleys of all the towns and cities, or end up accumulated by lustful men who use it for political power and prestige.
As proof, consider the American 'tax breaks for the rich' started under Carter and continuing with every administration that has led to our current vast wealth inequality and the proliferation of billionaires.
I wonder what was the straw that broke the camel's back?! I think that this is the most acid and quite a bit inflamatory essays of Aurelien, and I see no holds barred here, with the punches falling like an avalanche. I love it!
In my opinion, the long term solution to deal with sociopats/psychopats and people who cravenly climb for power is sortition. And I mean it, long, long term solution. It is the path that life itself chose and it allowed it to flourish. Sexual reproduction, in which randomensss plays the key role in producing the next generation of gametes (irrespective of sex), is, after all one of the greatest invention of life. And the argument made by many in the known is that the prehistoric society would work a bit that way while acerbically defending equalitarianism.
Yes, your solution is the only one which delivers a degree of fairness and perhaps stability. The problem is implementing it. Athens managed it for a short while, but eventually it was ended by external and internal hostility. Similar to the problems faced by the early Soviets in Russia. It may be that in fifty odd years, with ending of oil extraction and therefore industrial civilisation, that some group might be able to introduce such a system again, but prediction, especially about the future etc.
The West used it's ( temporary) advantage of superior technology to rape and pillage the globe. This allowed it the luxury of time and resources to improve the conditions of its masses. Together with the imperative of reducing the temptations of 'communism' sweeping away the liberal order. The 1980s culminating in 1992 saw the end of that threat. But it also saw the inexorable rise of non Western technological development . These factors together with the West's embrace of financialisation of the economy and the outsourcing of manufacturing meant that service industry economies were left to be 'managed'. The management resembles HR departments with the overriding requirement of 'human rights'.
We now have functionaries not politicians. They operate within a legal system designed to reflect 'fairness of human rights' which in practice allows moderately competent people to determine the fate of the many.
In such a system it's not that difficult to see the rise of the odd driven individual to assume the mantle of 'king'. Especially if that person is supported by the UHNW few.
Excellent follow up to your last piece. I’m late to comment because I wanted to read it carefully.
I lived for 50 years in the US congressional district of Leon Panetta, of a local Republican farming family and the Nixon White House staff, who transformed himself into a Democrat in the’70’s in order to go to congress (I’m old enough that Leon sat down with me to ask for my vote during that first run). Leon was later Clinton’s CofS, and Obama’s SecDef and CIA Dir. When Leon’s successor retired, two longtime “retail” elected officials personally known to me were instructed to stand down in favor of Leon’s son Jimmy, who had never held elected office and who remains a useless cipher in his congressional sinecure.
Why have the parties collapsed? Perhaps I’m too much of a material determinist, but I think that it’s down to the global population explosion; 2.5B at my birth in the mid-‘50’s to 8.25B today. Global arbitrage of labor and capital has distorted and disrupted the syndical basis under which our communities have traditionally organized. Neoliberal careerists have filled the vacuum.
Naked self-interest, stupidity, greed, and lies have been around since the beginning of human history (i.e. Cain and Abel, Genesis 4:1-18; Holy Quran 5:27-31). What changed post-1980?
I’m suggesting that the population explosion and the portability of capital eventually atomized the syndical organizations that had developed bargaining power in opposition to the longstanding naked self-interest of kings, potentates, and party leaders during the Industrial Revolution.
Correlation isn’t causation but the opposition of Clintonism and Blairism to organized labor can’t be denied. The ease with which Leon Panetta punked long-serving elected officials from running in an open primary against his ne’er-do-well son Jimmy is just an example.
"It’s not surprising that a number of Europe’s settled immigrant communities are moving sharply to the Right"
I'm not so sure about that.
Interestingly enough, population in towns plagued with increasing violence might consistently vote for parties going around saying that "the police kills" and that it must be defunded one way or an other. So yes, these people might want order and some sort of security. But that doesn't mean they want the kind of order the state is supposed to provide. And that's where separatism really lies.
The upcoming municipal elections will be interesting in this regard…
.
More generally, I have long believed that politicians have, for quite a few reasons, less and less power. And so, logically, more and more of them are in the game primarily to do what they can still do. That is, to improve their own lot...
Is it too much to say that Caesar and Marius were of the extreme right because they proposed to actually do something for the populares while making a killing for themselves? Just a thought. How perfectly Trump exemplifies this "political model." How perfectly this "political model" reflects what we think of as mafias or gangsters. As I read, running through my mind was the line in a song in the musical Kiss Me Kate based on Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew, "I've come to wive it wealthily in Padua." That actual affection intrudes is a side benefit and that it is welcomed speaks well of Petruchio, but his aim is purely transactional as Shakespeare's audience would have considered commonplace, or so it seems to me.
As is so often the case, your essays put in order the ideas that have been bumbling about loosely in my head and emerging in uncoordinated bursts of frustration. Lately, the notion that I have been too much of the idealist has cropped up unbidden. I spent my working life as a teacher in private schools striving to educate the children of the well-to-do seldom seeing any of them not follow into the "family business" whatever it might be. I was well insulated from the trials and tribulations of making one's way in what was often referred to as the "real world." I do not regret a moment of it. Retired, I live with my son and his family. I see what the working world has been for the parents and how much more difficult it is for my twenty-something grandchildren who do not have the "connections' to grease the skids for them in the working world.
FDR was president when I was a boy so I have watched the changes in American politics for 80 years. I have seen the evolution from the promotion of the general welfare to the seamy transactionalism and self-dealing of today.
I correspond with a former student now in her last year at university who means to pursue further study in public policy and sustainable development. I sent her your essay on making the sausage. We have exchanged views on it. Sustainable development carries seeds that just might mitigate some of the climate change induced unpleasantness that faces her and my grandchildren. It can be promoted by high minded disinterested public policy. It can also be promoted by a person or persons, individuals or a collective, who see a path to wealth and power using public policy to produce sustainable development while lining their pockets along the way. Perhaps also gaining a position of power. In other words doing very well while doing good. Sausage making. Best not done in the public square. I could live with that. There seems little choice. I would prefer that to what I see within the DC Bubble and Echo Chamber.
The ''missing link'' is clarity that we-the-people have all power of supply and demand; in other words, we produce and consume all goods and services. We must break our ''bad habits'' and begin new conversations focused on our endless opportunities to share skills, time, knowledge, goods and services. Common sense says simply that we can match our needs with the offers of other folk.
Essentially, we can found new systems driven on love and protection for our children and families. We have all the resources available to collaborate and develop projects for ourselves; rather than ''working like automatons'' for the same-old delusional narcissists who believe they're ''smart'' because ''we dummies'' obey their orders.
The inbuilt global tyranny is founded on ''The 3 Big Frauds - banking as debt, legalities as law and indoctrination as education. Meanwhile fraud vitiates everything so we can instigate ''The Great Reclaim'' for common good.
All said, we run the current system that controls and re-presents our Divine LifeForce and Natural Resources using ''bits'' - whether paper or digits. We must learn to stand up as living wo/men, create our own credit (where it's due) and dismiss the current fraudulent corporate ''govern-ment'' systems.
As we realign with Natural Law, we will restructure our lives based on common sense and real values. Quite simply, we can re-cognise the Truth, Beauty and Goodness reflected everywhere around our wonderful planet; and dismiss the imposed stress and fear we accept as ''normal''.
Meanwhile, a ''Bank'' is merely a digital ledger in a database that enables credits and debits. Easily created by any community who are wise enough to stand together using hands-on Real Education to exchange skills, time and knowledge.
Without doubt people would accept and recycle the currency of a ''Bank'' that they owned collectively as a public trust to be administered locally through private member associations. Moreover when that currency is generated debt-free into the accounts of members as they exchange their goods, services, time, skills, knowledge.
We can learn to barter as we match our offers and needs; we can develop projects that produce assets and public services; our communities can become worthy of investment; traditional debt-based funds can be recycled to support the generation of debt-free; hands-on creativity can enable ''true money-laundering'' as crowd-funding becomes crowd-owning.
Let me add two more frauds to the three already mentioned: war and famine.
And I would like to question the idea of a return to Nature. Murder and parasitism are entirely natural. We must not go back, but step forward. I mean joining collectivism: the trust should belong, among other things, to nation states, in exchange for administering a portion of the taxes.
We could really think and act ''out-of-the-box'' based on actual common sense and core values:
Imagine wo/man standing up as the creditors of all forms of ''value/money'' manufactured in the current banking process fraudulently as debt that controls while directing ''logic'' towards selfishness and greed:
* the living wo/man would take their true role under God as creditors and beneficiaries of their God-Given LifeForce - endless opportunities to employ skills, time and knowledge for creative exchanges
* all essential operational systems across all sectors could continue with people rewarded in debt-free currency
* the means of exchange for local, regional, national or international projects and other opportunities to use our skills, time and knowledge would be readily available
* the amount of currency required could be related to real ''spending power'' - the speed of its recycling for goods, services and worthy investment
* ''local banking'' would provide the funds debt-free out of the vast sums created in debt; excess $trillions could be extinguished to maintain real value
* the qualifying criteria for funds would remain as a properly-designed operational model; supported with business plans, schedule and specification of work, prospectus and so on
* the draw-down of monies would remain based on progress ''on site''
* the valuation of ''assets'', goods or services to be created would be based on their Social Value ie savings and benefits to life and living
* ''media'' content would evolve to reflect endless new opportunities and innovative ideas as creative expression is released from suppression and depression
* the traditional debt-money (or other forms of value) allocated could be transformed into debt-free cryptocurrency on transfer to the project recipient
All said and done, we, the living wo/man, already develop and manage every aspect; we simply continue without the debt and employ ''money'' as ''oil for creative, life-enhancing interaction''; credit goes where it is due.
"their true role under God as creditors and beneficiaries of their God-Given LifeForce"
Would you like to tell us who or what this 'god' that you postulate actually is? It would seem to be quite important if we are all to be 'under' he/she/it/
Walter Russell explained ''Divine Science'' - his 'Divine Downloads' illustrate the ''mechanics'' of how One Divine Mind produces untold opportunities - the means to reconnect to our Oneness through the Real Science of Divinity.
Essentially, the ''Will Of God'' divides to create a''Divine Whirlpool'' of electro-magnetism - contracting to spiral inward towards''No-Thingness'' - the Peace-Full Source of Pure Potential; opposed by expansion in exploration-investigation-discovery of ITs endless possibilities. So, the concept of infinite space is presented by our five senses when we are present in the psychosomatic apparatus (organic body) required for this planet to appear ''solid'' (Nisargadatta Maharaj ''I Am That'', ''Pointers'' and much more).
In effect, the Divine LifeForce - generated by Love of Wholeness in Stillness and Peace v Love of Action - generates the immense pressures and densities required to form the core elements that enable manifestation of the ''Image-I-Nation'' of God within the ''thrumb'' caused by Divine Thinking; ITs ''medium for condensation of matter (ice)'' is water in endless densities.
In 'The Secret of Light', Walter Russell reveals that the entire structure of ''space'', and all objective appearance (''ice''), comprises water held in numerous pressures and densities. Thus, the cosmic scenery ''floats''; perfectly balanced and unified in ''the waters of the deep''. So, all ''objects'' condense within the multiple dimensions of Awareness of Divine Mind - The Kingdom of God as ''My Witness''.
In awesome wonder, the entire Divine Play-Movie is manifesting within the ubiquitous, still light of One Divine Mind; with motion (wave energy/disturbance) generated by ''Loving Expansion'' within that peace-full light - Divine Thinking of Image-I-Nation. Whilst ITs endless possibilities appear ''infinite'' to the 5 senses of our planetary body-conveyance. ; with different body densities/frequencies required for each 'planetary holodeck'' to appear as ''solid'' at its point in the Divine Space-Time Framework of volume-duration.
''Spiritual Awakening'' is simply knowing The Reality of That Mind as the opposition/contrast between the Love of Peace (contraction into Source) and the Love of Discovery through Exploration and Investigation (expansion into infinite possibilities). ''The Divine Driver'' being endless revelation of the Truth of ITs Beauty and Goodness; a ''Divine Quest'' requiring the contrast and opposition of duality-polarity to power the Divine Dream.
Now partial 'science', flowing from centuries of manipulation into ignorance of Reality, has brought us to the choice between AI as artificial everything (deluded narcissistic replication) or as Actual Intelligence (''Divine Golden AI''). Our essential key to re-connect to Truth is earnest observation/witnessing of life in Awe and Gratitude for the Truth of That Reality.
Now True Awareness demands re-cognition and acceptance that our current 'sciences-philosophies-religions' are contaminated by multiple delusions; formed over millennia in disconnection from the Truth of Reality.
Return to our True State of Being flows in the deep, intense Humility of Gratitude at the Wonder of That That We Are; assisted with laughter at the ''messes we got into'' during our collective, disconnected insane beLIEving. Clearly an urgent call to introduce Real Education to fulfill its true purpose of ''bring out from within''.
Walter Russell explained the Divine Science during the 20th Century when his 'Divine Downloads' mapped out the entire interactive operational process to unfold endless opportunities when re-connected. Indeed, they represent the route to the Real Science of Re-connection to Divinity; while revealing the pathetic nature of so-called ''elite knowledge''.
The Secret Of Light By Walter Russell (Unabridged Illustrated Audiobook)
Well I know I Am here because of Consciousness and I've a lifetime of private experience; the rest is explained in the links if you care to do your own research
Once the current systemic fraud is re-cognised, the ''elite'' criminal mindset will be revealed in its deluded state and dismissed. Then, the central bank infrastructure will become a mechanism employed to facilitate untold creativity and well-being.
Essentially, we must realise that ''money'' has been corrupted by the ''lost souls'' entrapped in ignorance. While quite simply it is ''oil'' to enable creative exchange and barter between people; in effect, a reflection of our Divine LifeForce, which is always freely available.
Thereafter, it can be generated as required to create genuine Social Value; free from debt, taxes and ''elite'' control. Its spending power relates to its speed of circulation ie £1 can purchase £100 worth of goods and services in one day as it passes from hand-to-hand; so too much is a burden that leads to hoarding and false values.
In parallel, we must refocus on the actual nature of what has been mooted as ''a spiritual war'' i.e. the vast difference between ego-body-mind entrapment in material delusion and knowing the essence of Divine Thinking. As we learn to live in awe and gratitude for the Beauty and Goodness that enables life to manifest, we will enable our selves to revert to Reality.
I see. Your approach and Janis's idea are in different weight classes, despite the similarities in their language. Your focus isn't so much on finances as on a different perception of reality.
Very interesting. Although, of course, I'd like to see less idealism and more simplicity.
Well the systems for local co-operation facilitated with digital ''toolsets'' will enable people to decide based on their needs and aspirations. For too long we've been in the box of ''learned helplessness and hopelessness''; bred to accept non-sense from people who believe their 'box' empowers them in some way due to specialist knowledge.
Simplicity in my view flows from acceptance that true ''education'' comes from within - in-tuition - and our innate abilities to learn this simple fact have been deliberately shielded. It is not idealism to present alternatives to pernicious tyranny; rather service to enable real potential to be expressed. In effect, Real Education can provide endless opportunities through co-operation; so we simply need new processes in support.
With contemporary progressives (all academics, employed by the state, think tanks, ngo's, the eu, media or the academy itself) as the vanguard of individualism. Working on a weak 'nation' of ethnic and social enclaves (middle class immigrants end up in white middle class neighborhoods reinforcing progressives in their belief that all is well) and held together by the law only.
When reports doubt that all is well (Muslims beating up gays and having sex crime numbers decimals higher than the natives) those reports end up in progressives' drawers. When exposed the messenger is quickly found out an 'Islamophobe' (conversely, here in The Netherlands, like in the 60s, 70s and 80s, twenty-something progressive tv-types are still applauded as rebels when they ridicule Christians).
One thing hás changed: these days progressives call for a more robust military. Because of lgbt-unfriendly Putin. But don't ask who is the least likely to sign up or dodge a draft.
I would argue that contemporary progressives are the opposite of the vanguard of individualism. For the so-called Progressives it's all about group and class thinking. The oppressed minorities versus the oppressor majority. They are Liberal Collectivists. They want more rights for groups and classes their Liberal ideology venerates (LGBT, non-Whites, immigrants, etc.). They are Liberals in the sense that they want more freedom for these minority groups, but at the expense of individualist rights of individual members of the majority.
I agree that they use minorities' rights or 'injustices' done by majorities as a vehicle to progress progressive wants, and that their capture of state, academia and media can be described as liberal collectivism. But they don't really venerate these minorities. Since Marxism went 'cultural' they adopted one cause after another, from the environment and the third world back then, to climate and trans today. But they fly just as much as you and i and their daughters don't date Muslim men. (Class thinking they shelved in the 70s already despite the rethoric. Again, it was just a vehicle. They have built out the welfare state as much if not more for themselves than for the workers (the 'practically educated' they're called in my country).
Trumping the 'oppressed' allows them to very effectively shut up the right. They needed that trick since most Western European countries have - and had - a (at least somewhat) right leaning majority for generations.
What i mean with 'the vanguard of individualism' - and what i did not explain much - is that they want to evaporate the ties that bind people: family, religious and/or ethnic background, regional character (unless it's innocent folklore to be enjoyed during a holiday), the nation state itself...
The West pretty much cut its own throat when it embraced Thatcherism and Reaganism. Rather than restrain Capitalism it restrained the general public and allowed the predators full reign so the government no longer did anything for you but started to do things to you.
The political process came to be all that mattered and anything beyond that was wished away.
In Australia the current government is trying to sort out new environmental standards and safeguards.
Does it talk to people who are activated by the endless environmental destruction that has occurred here over the last several decades of Thatcherism and make an attempt to stop the ongoing collapse?
No it does not. It wants to do a deal with people that don't give a rats arse about the environment but are their political opposition, so they are looking at the barest of anything for the political fix, so they won't be outflanked.
The current opposition will be lucky to survive as a political entity as their internal contradictions tear the thing apart, but Labor would rather do a deal with this clusterfuck than start to address the ongoing environmental catastrophe.
This attitude is what dooms the West. Serious matters have been submerged in a political game between protagonists who don't care one way or the other as to how the results play out.
All true, but this isn't suicide for the West, but rather its surrender to the growing trend of collectivism. When this happens, socialism will evolve into something that values business, freedom, profit, and so on.
The North, East, and South await the return of the West, which possesses special skills, to the common family.
"surrender to the growing trend of collectivism" - this is a strange remark. Provide some proof - if you have any. The economic basis of the 'west' is as it always has been - 'socialism' for the rich and 'capitalism' - of the most extreme kind, for the rest
I admit that many of the formulations are sloppy. Sorry.
Collectivism in the context of this conversation, is an investment system that competes with banks. It has been used in various eras: by primitive communities, Eastern empires, the medieval church, and the USSR/China.
– The strength of banks (moneylenders/Zionists): centuries-old ability to predict + exploitation of society's craving for commerce.
– The strength of collectivism: the native integration of financing into the organization, thereby saving on presentations, banking infrastructure, risks, searching for fraudsters, etc.
And now to the requested proof... To finance something large and complex, like a green economy or complex gas turbines, it's much more convenient to use collectivism. Big attracts big. Conversely, the smaller and simpler the business, the more attractive banks are. Small attracts small.
In other words, there's a clear correlation between the increasing complexity of the economy and the success of collectivism. It's like discovering a new law of nature.
At the same time, we know that all of history has been a trend toward increasing complexity. Accordingly, according to the stated law, this is a trend toward increasing collectivization.
We currently have a certain balance. As you yourself have noticed, a combination of socialism (collectivity) and capitalism (banks). And this, as we see, is in crisis. So it's time to change the balance to pure collectivism. This won't be socialism, but something new, one that takes into account the interests of business.
"something new, one that takes into account the interests of business."
We already have something that 'takes into account the interests of business'. It seems to be doing that very well - in fact to an excessive degree. It's the interests and welfare of the mass of the population that needs to be taken into account, and that would be an innovative step forwards. See the writings of Karl Marx and others for more information.
It's nice to receive a reference to Marx, as my thoughts seem to continue his trend in the development of historicism. I consider his insight into dividing progress into five stages to be brilliant.
But I hope you agree that there are some changes that need to be made to Marxist theory?
Yes, absolutely. A lot has happened that Marx could not foresee. But changes must involve accommodating capitalism only as a tool for the equal advancement of all, not as a weapon for the few.
"the West"? Who do you mean by the 'the west'? Just because the majority of the population(s) didn't do very well, doesn't mean that the already wealthy or well connected did not. In fact, they were the intended benificiaries.
Liberalism isn't about being kind to puppy dogs - it's about allowing the market to reign supreme. It is curious the way that the notion has been hijacked and given a social rather than an economic definition. But it sowed the seeds of rot within the socialist movement in which identity politics (meant to counter traditional 'social' definitions of Liberalism) were uneasily grafted on to class politics, so that we now see issues such as sexual orientation being ones that define political parties rather than these being the subject of personal choice/ preference.
I think the old Liberal tradition of personal liberty was a valid one that we should go back to (while acknowledging that historically the roots of this have more to do with economic rather than social pressures).
That digression apart, it seems to me that the only way to counter the increasing concentration of wealth is to reassert the priority of class politics and subject (rather than relegate) 'identity politics' to legal protection about personal choices. In other, words we have laws that protect an individuals right to do whatever they like so long as it doesn't harm others (the Roy Jenkins approach), but would not deem it necessary to include the wide array of what are frequently contentious and contradictory social declarations in a manifesto. Class politics are important because it really is the rich against the rest. Politics should get back to being about economics.
'Politics' is not about 'economics' - politics is about the management of a country to (theoretically) benefit all of its population - economics is merely a sub-set of this. There are many other aspects to consider - unless you are a US citizen, in which case you are correct.
Economics is NOT a sub set. It is the basis for everything. It's the reality that frames everything. Without production the human species is nothing. That's why we have to control the economy and not leave it up to 'the market'.
So you ARE a US citizen. Your viewpoint is crude and materialistic. Of course everyone needs sufficient food, shelter and water - that's a given. But life is about so much more than that. People with a sufficiency of basic needs but who are allowed no real meaningful life beyond that very often sicken and die, (e.g. some Pacific islanders) while those with a reason for living can survive even when relatively deprived. To focus everything on 'economics' is to do what the Bible called 'worshipping the Golden Calf'. How much 'production' did the Kalahari bushmen indulge themselves in? The answer is 'none'. They spent a few hours hunting and gathering, then a much larger number of hours dancing and singing and interacting with each other - because that is what is really important to humanity.
However, I certainly agree with you that the 'market' should not be allowed anywhere near the necessities of life, and that the economy should be controlled. But the economy is still just a tool for the furtherance of enjoyment and mind expansion.
"the Chinese Communist Party.. promises to do things, and it generally delivers".
What's more, the things it does must always have been field-tested in a province then won the support of two-thirds of the Chinese people. Winning that support can take decades–as it did with the Three Gorges project.
Do you think the West is capable of looking at the East without condescension? You personally are capable, but it seems like only an exception.
1. "The tremendous concentration of wealth in a tiny number of hands does not, in the end, benefit anyone very much. The rich have more money than they can spend, but they are generally loathed and detested, and they are not even very skilful at parlaying that wealth into political power, assuming that is what they want. A society collapsing around them can no longer provide them with the mundane requirements of everyday life: it’s hard to get cleaners and gardeners and chauffeurs and even helicopter pilots when they can’t afford to live nearby, and in most big cities restaurants close early, or don’t open every day because they can’t get staff, or because security is getting worse with unemployment and poverty increasing and reductions in local and national government services. In a deeply unequal society everybody, including the rich, suffers from worse health and lower life-expectancy. "
Whatever next? The West is turning into a sort of lopsided Brasil, albeit with less attractive females, fewer mosquitos, and a more hyperbelligerent foreign policy.
The situation in Brasil suits the elites in Brasil just dandy. Sure the masses loathe them and would kill them as soon as they got the chance, but the elites have the police, army and private security to handle the poors. Besides, they have no shortage of cleaners, helicopter pilots, private bodyguards, etc., and if the elites in the West are dissatisfied with the increasing Brasilianification of their countries, they sure are strangely quiet about it.
2. Political parties in Western countries are not collapsing. Rather, they are enjoying increasing little support, even as they continue to dominate election results and, consequently, governments.
This also suits the parties and their bosses just fine. It doesn't matter if, for example, Labour wins a given by-election with only 15% voter turnout, as long as they win. The MP's vote counts just the same as any other MP.
Of course, the reason that fewer people support mainstream western parties is because it is abundantly obvious that none of these parties has anything to offer the average frustrated voter, just as the much ballyhooed "decline of the experts" stems from the fact that the experts have proven to be entirely self-serving.
From the point of view of the party bosses or the elites who control them, who cares? Whether the government or party is popular or not is irrelevant, as long as orders given in that government's name are carried out.
If that means that democracy has to be cancelled or curtailed, so what? The masses go along with barely a peep of protest.
🤪 Good (but boring) to see that some 'comments' never change.
A very interesting and important analysis of the current political stasis and and its uniformity of political class and interests. But referencing the apolitical character of Starmer an empty vacillating individual with few or no convictions how to explain his psychopathic obsession with the Ukraine Proxy War and his personal need to support and fund it to the trigger point of WW3? The damascene conversion of this cardboard politician into a war hungry militaristic nightmare a threat to our very existence defies credibility but I see no explanation in your analysis of political class to suggest the emergence of such absolute extremism!
Prime minister has no intention of going to war with Russia, much less provoking nuclear bombs on himself. The goal is to rob the eastern giant. And if that doesn't work, then at least distract the electorate from problems. It's all quite businesslike.
Brilliant! My take on liberalism is that it was a product of the Enlightenment and placed in service to dismantle the feudal system. As such, it gave birth to capitalism and communism as well (there is a straight line from Adam Smith to Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin). Thus liberalism is hardly static and changes dialectically. In the 1980s, the transformation was to New Liberalism, or neoliberalism, and it would be hardly recognizable to an 18th century activist. So now, Liberalism isn't liberal and neither is its heir, Neoliberalism.
There is indeed a straight line from the actual writings of Adam Smith to Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin - but not from the Adam Smith who writing is selectively quoted from yesterday and today. So 'liberalism' really has very little to do with any of these three. Liberalism also is in fact still 'liberal' - that's where its power to destroy comes from - the atomisation of morality, ethics, solidarity, religion and everything else which acts as a binding force in society.
My conception of 'liberalism' differs from yours, obviously. You seem to describe what I referred to as neoliberalism, which, as I said, is not liberal. In my understanding, there was a bifurcation after liberalism's creation of capitalism. Liberal capitalism of the bourgeoisie did not evolve, while liberal socialism did.
Liberalism certainly emerged thanks to the Enlightenment, but why did it give rise to capitalism?
According to scholarly consensus, it gradually emerged with the Renaissance and the Reformation. The first capitalists were Venetian manufacturers. 16th century.
Capitalism was central to the defeat of feudalism, and I am surprised you don't recognize its liberal elements. To this day, the rightwing equates capitalism with freedom, such as the Libertarians.
The origin of capitalism is a major debate among historians and economists, but the Venice connection does not tick enough of the 'capitalism' boxes, while the English Enclosures do. See THE ORIGINS OF CAPITALISM: A LONGER VIEW, Ellen Meiksins Wood, for capitalism in England.
Of course, capitalism originally had a liberal element, but which of the two is primary? Google AI confirms that most theorists assume the primacy of capitalism.
This makes a lot of sense.
Liberalism is capitalism under the conditions of the emergence of nations after bourgeois revolutions (especially the French Revolution).
Freedom of enterprise arose with capitalism. This is what libertarians point to. But there's one caveat: who will finance business? This can be done by the state itself, through the intelligence of its officials, and by business itself, from its savings. Not very convenient, but quite economical and pleasing to God, since the immorality of usurers is still palpable.
And so, liberalism distinguished itself by riding the wave of resistance to this conservative trend: it advocates free enterprise without exceptions for credit. In other words, according to it, no one should resist the central role of banks in financial matters. Super-freedom.
The compensation was public control of banks through their subordination to the Central Bank. And neoliberalism is about the idea that even this kind of control is unnecessary. Ultra-freedom. Under these new conditions, banks are inventing fiat currencies, and the train is gradually starting to derail.
Thanks for the link, but it seems obvious.
Yes. Capitalism is the fruit of liberalism as is communism. However, you overdo liberal capitalism. Adam Smith was very much an advocate of capitalism and markets, but few actually read him, especially where he states that markets should be free (liberal) of financial rent and monopolies and other malign influences. To create such a market requires a state willing to eschew profit and apply regulation. So Adam Smith is not in any way a Libertarian.
As for fiat money, it is not created by banks. Banks are state-licensed and regulated. Loans must be repaid or the bank would be out of business, so if you consider a bank loan created-money, that money is destined to be extinguished.
Like all money, fiat money is a creation of the State and this has been true since the beginning of civilization. The State creates money to provision itself and to achieve social and political goals. This money passes through the economy and some of it ends up as bank reserves (someone's savings). The State then taxes excess money out of existence, achieving more political goals along the way. Without sufficient taxes, money would clog the streets and alleys of all the towns and cities, or end up accumulated by lustful men who use it for political power and prestige.
As proof, consider the American 'tax breaks for the rich' started under Carter and continuing with every administration that has led to our current vast wealth inequality and the proliferation of billionaires.
As Emmanuel Todd notes, we are transitioning rapidly from The Zombie Zone to Zero Zone of nihilism.
I wonder what was the straw that broke the camel's back?! I think that this is the most acid and quite a bit inflamatory essays of Aurelien, and I see no holds barred here, with the punches falling like an avalanche. I love it!
In my opinion, the long term solution to deal with sociopats/psychopats and people who cravenly climb for power is sortition. And I mean it, long, long term solution. It is the path that life itself chose and it allowed it to flourish. Sexual reproduction, in which randomensss plays the key role in producing the next generation of gametes (irrespective of sex), is, after all one of the greatest invention of life. And the argument made by many in the known is that the prehistoric society would work a bit that way while acerbically defending equalitarianism.
Yes, your solution is the only one which delivers a degree of fairness and perhaps stability. The problem is implementing it. Athens managed it for a short while, but eventually it was ended by external and internal hostility. Similar to the problems faced by the early Soviets in Russia. It may be that in fifty odd years, with ending of oil extraction and therefore industrial civilisation, that some group might be able to introduce such a system again, but prediction, especially about the future etc.
It's the economy, stupid.
The West used it's ( temporary) advantage of superior technology to rape and pillage the globe. This allowed it the luxury of time and resources to improve the conditions of its masses. Together with the imperative of reducing the temptations of 'communism' sweeping away the liberal order. The 1980s culminating in 1992 saw the end of that threat. But it also saw the inexorable rise of non Western technological development . These factors together with the West's embrace of financialisation of the economy and the outsourcing of manufacturing meant that service industry economies were left to be 'managed'. The management resembles HR departments with the overriding requirement of 'human rights'.
We now have functionaries not politicians. They operate within a legal system designed to reflect 'fairness of human rights' which in practice allows moderately competent people to determine the fate of the many.
In such a system it's not that difficult to see the rise of the odd driven individual to assume the mantle of 'king'. Especially if that person is supported by the UHNW few.
Clare Short has commented that Government by Focus Group isn’t government.
And we should give Claire Short credence because . . . ?
Optional, make your own mind up time.
Yeah. That took up a micro-second or so.
Excellent follow up to your last piece. I’m late to comment because I wanted to read it carefully.
I lived for 50 years in the US congressional district of Leon Panetta, of a local Republican farming family and the Nixon White House staff, who transformed himself into a Democrat in the’70’s in order to go to congress (I’m old enough that Leon sat down with me to ask for my vote during that first run). Leon was later Clinton’s CofS, and Obama’s SecDef and CIA Dir. When Leon’s successor retired, two longtime “retail” elected officials personally known to me were instructed to stand down in favor of Leon’s son Jimmy, who had never held elected office and who remains a useless cipher in his congressional sinecure.
Why have the parties collapsed? Perhaps I’m too much of a material determinist, but I think that it’s down to the global population explosion; 2.5B at my birth in the mid-‘50’s to 8.25B today. Global arbitrage of labor and capital has distorted and disrupted the syndical basis under which our communities have traditionally organized. Neoliberal careerists have filled the vacuum.
"Why have the parties collapsed?" Perhaps it was the naked self-interest, stupidity, greed and lies?
Naked self-interest, stupidity, greed, and lies have been around since the beginning of human history (i.e. Cain and Abel, Genesis 4:1-18; Holy Quran 5:27-31). What changed post-1980?
I’m suggesting that the population explosion and the portability of capital eventually atomized the syndical organizations that had developed bargaining power in opposition to the longstanding naked self-interest of kings, potentates, and party leaders during the Industrial Revolution.
Correlation isn’t causation but the opposition of Clintonism and Blairism to organized labor can’t be denied. The ease with which Leon Panetta punked long-serving elected officials from running in an open primary against his ne’er-do-well son Jimmy is just an example.
"It’s not surprising that a number of Europe’s settled immigrant communities are moving sharply to the Right"
I'm not so sure about that.
Interestingly enough, population in towns plagued with increasing violence might consistently vote for parties going around saying that "the police kills" and that it must be defunded one way or an other. So yes, these people might want order and some sort of security. But that doesn't mean they want the kind of order the state is supposed to provide. And that's where separatism really lies.
The upcoming municipal elections will be interesting in this regard…
.
More generally, I have long believed that politicians have, for quite a few reasons, less and less power. And so, logically, more and more of them are in the game primarily to do what they can still do. That is, to improve their own lot...
My italian translation, as usual, here:
"Vivere al contrario.
Ci siamo già passati. Purtroppo."
https://trying2understandw.blogspot.com/2025/11/vivere-al-contrario-ci-siamo-gia.html
Is it too much to say that Caesar and Marius were of the extreme right because they proposed to actually do something for the populares while making a killing for themselves? Just a thought. How perfectly Trump exemplifies this "political model." How perfectly this "political model" reflects what we think of as mafias or gangsters. As I read, running through my mind was the line in a song in the musical Kiss Me Kate based on Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew, "I've come to wive it wealthily in Padua." That actual affection intrudes is a side benefit and that it is welcomed speaks well of Petruchio, but his aim is purely transactional as Shakespeare's audience would have considered commonplace, or so it seems to me.
As is so often the case, your essays put in order the ideas that have been bumbling about loosely in my head and emerging in uncoordinated bursts of frustration. Lately, the notion that I have been too much of the idealist has cropped up unbidden. I spent my working life as a teacher in private schools striving to educate the children of the well-to-do seldom seeing any of them not follow into the "family business" whatever it might be. I was well insulated from the trials and tribulations of making one's way in what was often referred to as the "real world." I do not regret a moment of it. Retired, I live with my son and his family. I see what the working world has been for the parents and how much more difficult it is for my twenty-something grandchildren who do not have the "connections' to grease the skids for them in the working world.
FDR was president when I was a boy so I have watched the changes in American politics for 80 years. I have seen the evolution from the promotion of the general welfare to the seamy transactionalism and self-dealing of today.
I correspond with a former student now in her last year at university who means to pursue further study in public policy and sustainable development. I sent her your essay on making the sausage. We have exchanged views on it. Sustainable development carries seeds that just might mitigate some of the climate change induced unpleasantness that faces her and my grandchildren. It can be promoted by high minded disinterested public policy. It can also be promoted by a person or persons, individuals or a collective, who see a path to wealth and power using public policy to produce sustainable development while lining their pockets along the way. Perhaps also gaining a position of power. In other words doing very well while doing good. Sausage making. Best not done in the public square. I could live with that. There seems little choice. I would prefer that to what I see within the DC Bubble and Echo Chamber.
The ''missing link'' is clarity that we-the-people have all power of supply and demand; in other words, we produce and consume all goods and services. We must break our ''bad habits'' and begin new conversations focused on our endless opportunities to share skills, time, knowledge, goods and services. Common sense says simply that we can match our needs with the offers of other folk.
Essentially, we can found new systems driven on love and protection for our children and families. We have all the resources available to collaborate and develop projects for ourselves; rather than ''working like automatons'' for the same-old delusional narcissists who believe they're ''smart'' because ''we dummies'' obey their orders.
The inbuilt global tyranny is founded on ''The 3 Big Frauds - banking as debt, legalities as law and indoctrination as education. Meanwhile fraud vitiates everything so we can instigate ''The Great Reclaim'' for common good.
All said, we run the current system that controls and re-presents our Divine LifeForce and Natural Resources using ''bits'' - whether paper or digits. We must learn to stand up as living wo/men, create our own credit (where it's due) and dismiss the current fraudulent corporate ''govern-ment'' systems.
As we realign with Natural Law, we will restructure our lives based on common sense and real values. Quite simply, we can re-cognise the Truth, Beauty and Goodness reflected everywhere around our wonderful planet; and dismiss the imposed stress and fear we accept as ''normal''.
Meanwhile, a ''Bank'' is merely a digital ledger in a database that enables credits and debits. Easily created by any community who are wise enough to stand together using hands-on Real Education to exchange skills, time and knowledge.
Without doubt people would accept and recycle the currency of a ''Bank'' that they owned collectively as a public trust to be administered locally through private member associations. Moreover when that currency is generated debt-free into the accounts of members as they exchange their goods, services, time, skills, knowledge.
We can learn to barter as we match our offers and needs; we can develop projects that produce assets and public services; our communities can become worthy of investment; traditional debt-based funds can be recycled to support the generation of debt-free; hands-on creativity can enable ''true money-laundering'' as crowd-funding becomes crowd-owning.
This is the essential conversation missing.
Let me add two more frauds to the three already mentioned: war and famine.
And I would like to question the idea of a return to Nature. Murder and parasitism are entirely natural. We must not go back, but step forward. I mean joining collectivism: the trust should belong, among other things, to nation states, in exchange for administering a portion of the taxes.
Tax is a fraud on a fraud surely
You may be right. It's a moot point.
In any case, it's time to change the financing model. Especially since modern technology is making it easier.
Indeed, and we're working with a tech team to develop a digital 'toolset'' to enable a new ''Market-Space''. The summaries are on my substack
We could really think and act ''out-of-the-box'' based on actual common sense and core values:
Imagine wo/man standing up as the creditors of all forms of ''value/money'' manufactured in the current banking process fraudulently as debt that controls while directing ''logic'' towards selfishness and greed:
* the living wo/man would take their true role under God as creditors and beneficiaries of their God-Given LifeForce - endless opportunities to employ skills, time and knowledge for creative exchanges
* all essential operational systems across all sectors could continue with people rewarded in debt-free currency
* the means of exchange for local, regional, national or international projects and other opportunities to use our skills, time and knowledge would be readily available
* the amount of currency required could be related to real ''spending power'' - the speed of its recycling for goods, services and worthy investment
* ''local banking'' would provide the funds debt-free out of the vast sums created in debt; excess $trillions could be extinguished to maintain real value
* the qualifying criteria for funds would remain as a properly-designed operational model; supported with business plans, schedule and specification of work, prospectus and so on
* the draw-down of monies would remain based on progress ''on site''
* the valuation of ''assets'', goods or services to be created would be based on their Social Value ie savings and benefits to life and living
* ''media'' content would evolve to reflect endless new opportunities and innovative ideas as creative expression is released from suppression and depression
* the traditional debt-money (or other forms of value) allocated could be transformed into debt-free cryptocurrency on transfer to the project recipient
All said and done, we, the living wo/man, already develop and manage every aspect; we simply continue without the debt and employ ''money'' as ''oil for creative, life-enhancing interaction''; credit goes where it is due.
"their true role under God as creditors and beneficiaries of their God-Given LifeForce"
Would you like to tell us who or what this 'god' that you postulate actually is? It would seem to be quite important if we are all to be 'under' he/she/it/
This re-post from an earlier overview may assist:
Walter Russell explained ''Divine Science'' - his 'Divine Downloads' illustrate the ''mechanics'' of how One Divine Mind produces untold opportunities - the means to reconnect to our Oneness through the Real Science of Divinity.
Essentially, the ''Will Of God'' divides to create a''Divine Whirlpool'' of electro-magnetism - contracting to spiral inward towards''No-Thingness'' - the Peace-Full Source of Pure Potential; opposed by expansion in exploration-investigation-discovery of ITs endless possibilities. So, the concept of infinite space is presented by our five senses when we are present in the psychosomatic apparatus (organic body) required for this planet to appear ''solid'' (Nisargadatta Maharaj ''I Am That'', ''Pointers'' and much more).
In effect, the Divine LifeForce - generated by Love of Wholeness in Stillness and Peace v Love of Action - generates the immense pressures and densities required to form the core elements that enable manifestation of the ''Image-I-Nation'' of God within the ''thrumb'' caused by Divine Thinking; ITs ''medium for condensation of matter (ice)'' is water in endless densities.
In 'The Secret of Light', Walter Russell reveals that the entire structure of ''space'', and all objective appearance (''ice''), comprises water held in numerous pressures and densities. Thus, the cosmic scenery ''floats''; perfectly balanced and unified in ''the waters of the deep''. So, all ''objects'' condense within the multiple dimensions of Awareness of Divine Mind - The Kingdom of God as ''My Witness''.
In awesome wonder, the entire Divine Play-Movie is manifesting within the ubiquitous, still light of One Divine Mind; with motion (wave energy/disturbance) generated by ''Loving Expansion'' within that peace-full light - Divine Thinking of Image-I-Nation. Whilst ITs endless possibilities appear ''infinite'' to the 5 senses of our planetary body-conveyance. ; with different body densities/frequencies required for each 'planetary holodeck'' to appear as ''solid'' at its point in the Divine Space-Time Framework of volume-duration.
''Spiritual Awakening'' is simply knowing The Reality of That Mind as the opposition/contrast between the Love of Peace (contraction into Source) and the Love of Discovery through Exploration and Investigation (expansion into infinite possibilities). ''The Divine Driver'' being endless revelation of the Truth of ITs Beauty and Goodness; a ''Divine Quest'' requiring the contrast and opposition of duality-polarity to power the Divine Dream.
Now partial 'science', flowing from centuries of manipulation into ignorance of Reality, has brought us to the choice between AI as artificial everything (deluded narcissistic replication) or as Actual Intelligence (''Divine Golden AI''). Our essential key to re-connect to Truth is earnest observation/witnessing of life in Awe and Gratitude for the Truth of That Reality.
Now True Awareness demands re-cognition and acceptance that our current 'sciences-philosophies-religions' are contaminated by multiple delusions; formed over millennia in disconnection from the Truth of Reality.
Return to our True State of Being flows in the deep, intense Humility of Gratitude at the Wonder of That That We Are; assisted with laughter at the ''messes we got into'' during our collective, disconnected insane beLIEving. Clearly an urgent call to introduce Real Education to fulfill its true purpose of ''bring out from within''.
Walter Russell explained the Divine Science during the 20th Century when his 'Divine Downloads' mapped out the entire interactive operational process to unfold endless opportunities when re-connected. Indeed, they represent the route to the Real Science of Re-connection to Divinity; while revealing the pathetic nature of so-called ''elite knowledge''.
The Secret Of Light By Walter Russell (Unabridged Illustrated Audiobook)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPKO1cxAz3o
The University established for his teachings:
Videos - The University of Science and Philosophy
philosophy.org/videos.h…
His 39 day superconscious 40,000 word revelation:
The Message Of The Divine Iliad By Walter Russell (Unabridged Audiobook With Discussion)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciCQ35O1NOU
Nisargadatta Maharaj and Ramana Maharshi told it from their situation of full awareness.
And your proof that the above is a true account of 'reality' is . . . ?
Well I know I Am here because of Consciousness and I've a lifetime of private experience; the rest is explained in the links if you care to do your own research
I have done my own research, and the results do not agree with yours in most respects.
Your idea is somewhat reminiscent of a recent proposal by Yanis Varoufakis: Trust Fund for Everyone (https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2025/10/10/25876/)
Once the current systemic fraud is re-cognised, the ''elite'' criminal mindset will be revealed in its deluded state and dismissed. Then, the central bank infrastructure will become a mechanism employed to facilitate untold creativity and well-being.
Essentially, we must realise that ''money'' has been corrupted by the ''lost souls'' entrapped in ignorance. While quite simply it is ''oil'' to enable creative exchange and barter between people; in effect, a reflection of our Divine LifeForce, which is always freely available.
Thereafter, it can be generated as required to create genuine Social Value; free from debt, taxes and ''elite'' control. Its spending power relates to its speed of circulation ie £1 can purchase £100 worth of goods and services in one day as it passes from hand-to-hand; so too much is a burden that leads to hoarding and false values.
In parallel, we must refocus on the actual nature of what has been mooted as ''a spiritual war'' i.e. the vast difference between ego-body-mind entrapment in material delusion and knowing the essence of Divine Thinking. As we learn to live in awe and gratitude for the Beauty and Goodness that enables life to manifest, we will enable our selves to revert to Reality.
I see. Your approach and Janis's idea are in different weight classes, despite the similarities in their language. Your focus isn't so much on finances as on a different perception of reality.
Very interesting. Although, of course, I'd like to see less idealism and more simplicity.
Well the systems for local co-operation facilitated with digital ''toolsets'' will enable people to decide based on their needs and aspirations. For too long we've been in the box of ''learned helplessness and hopelessness''; bred to accept non-sense from people who believe their 'box' empowers them in some way due to specialist knowledge.
Simplicity in my view flows from acceptance that true ''education'' comes from within - in-tuition - and our innate abilities to learn this simple fact have been deliberately shielded. It is not idealism to present alternatives to pernicious tyranny; rather service to enable real potential to be expressed. In effect, Real Education can provide endless opportunities through co-operation; so we simply need new processes in support.
I think in most of the article replacing 'Liberalism' with 'Individualism' would've made it more accurate.
No - Liberalism was about 'the free market'. Individualism was the product of that rather than the other way round.
You're right - but the free market applies to everything, including the expression of personality.
With contemporary progressives (all academics, employed by the state, think tanks, ngo's, the eu, media or the academy itself) as the vanguard of individualism. Working on a weak 'nation' of ethnic and social enclaves (middle class immigrants end up in white middle class neighborhoods reinforcing progressives in their belief that all is well) and held together by the law only.
When reports doubt that all is well (Muslims beating up gays and having sex crime numbers decimals higher than the natives) those reports end up in progressives' drawers. When exposed the messenger is quickly found out an 'Islamophobe' (conversely, here in The Netherlands, like in the 60s, 70s and 80s, twenty-something progressive tv-types are still applauded as rebels when they ridicule Christians).
One thing hás changed: these days progressives call for a more robust military. Because of lgbt-unfriendly Putin. But don't ask who is the least likely to sign up or dodge a draft.
I would argue that contemporary progressives are the opposite of the vanguard of individualism. For the so-called Progressives it's all about group and class thinking. The oppressed minorities versus the oppressor majority. They are Liberal Collectivists. They want more rights for groups and classes their Liberal ideology venerates (LGBT, non-Whites, immigrants, etc.). They are Liberals in the sense that they want more freedom for these minority groups, but at the expense of individualist rights of individual members of the majority.
Sexual proclivities are not 'classes', so your proposal is a nullity
I agree that they use minorities' rights or 'injustices' done by majorities as a vehicle to progress progressive wants, and that their capture of state, academia and media can be described as liberal collectivism. But they don't really venerate these minorities. Since Marxism went 'cultural' they adopted one cause after another, from the environment and the third world back then, to climate and trans today. But they fly just as much as you and i and their daughters don't date Muslim men. (Class thinking they shelved in the 70s already despite the rethoric. Again, it was just a vehicle. They have built out the welfare state as much if not more for themselves than for the workers (the 'practically educated' they're called in my country).
Trumping the 'oppressed' allows them to very effectively shut up the right. They needed that trick since most Western European countries have - and had - a (at least somewhat) right leaning majority for generations.
What i mean with 'the vanguard of individualism' - and what i did not explain much - is that they want to evaporate the ties that bind people: family, religious and/or ethnic background, regional character (unless it's innocent folklore to be enjoyed during a holiday), the nation state itself...