When thinking about the changes set in motion this year at Christmas, the events which standout are the revelation that the American presidency has been vacant for four years, and the failed assassinations of the man who won the election to replace this shadow government.
In last week's class we discussed the principles of Hamiltonian National Banking. This Saturday Robert Ingraham will present an outline of how we can apply those principles today.
The second Trump Presidency is less than 30 days away, but the physical economy is already being reorganized to rise up to the demands that the new Trump Presidency will place upon it.
Javier Milei, the self-described anarcho-libertarian who is now the President of Argentina, made an appearance at CPAC which is grabbing laudatory headlines. He called himself MAGA and thus won apparent plaudits from President Donald Trump. RFK, Jr. tweeted that his self-described “chainsaw” austerity approach to Argentina’s collapsed economy constituted the same type of “draining the swamp” which he would emulate. All of that represents a dangerous ignorance of what Milei stands for, who is running him, and the reasons for the train wreck which is the Argentinian economy.
First, the man is quite nuts. Like the other recent Anglo-American pawn, Volodymyr Zelensky, his background is entertainment of the worst sort. He is a rock star whose band indulged in plagiarizing the Rolling Stones. He was also a soccer goalie and an abused kid whose outbursts and violent episodes earned him the nickname ‘El Loco’ throughout his youth.
His social relationships throughout adulthood consist of alleged consultations and deep understandings reached by talking to his five dogs --giant mastiffs cloned from his first mastiff, Conan. That’s Conan, after the movie, Conan the Barbarian, which starred a similar pedigreed fascist, Arnold Schwarzenegger. He described Conan as his son and following his death he states that they have engaged in persistent conversation with each other. According to the Wall Street Journal, Milei claims “to spiritually communicate with the animal, telling friends they first met in another life 2,000 years ago in a Roman coliseum when he was a gladiator and the dog was a lion, according to ‘El Loco.’ Instead of fighting, the pair teamed up with the mission of one day ruling Argentina.” His current “children” are named after the economists who have stolen his brain: Milton for Milton Friedman, Murray, for Murray Rothbard, Robert, and Lucas for Robert Lucas, and, of course, Conon.
The British deployed radical libertarians represent one side of the economic see saw which has destroyed the economies of South America and Argentina. Cyclically, Marxists and Mt. Pelerin Society based radical free traders have controlled economics there. The drug trade flourishes, and most economies are debt slaves to the oligarchy. Like all libertarians of his stripe he is a rabid free trader, supports open drug use, firearms, prostitution, and same sex marriage, and is generally against foreign interventions and wars. He differs, however, in supporting Ukraine, and supporting close relations with the United States and Israel and opposing China’s entry into the hemisphere. Hence, Wall Street and London, the IMF, and the Biden Administration are in love with him and promote him with abandon. Of particular note is his love affair with the racist Murray Rothbard, an anarchist who denounced all forms of government. Rothbard, in turn, was the agent for the Austrian school led by Friedrich Von Hayek and popularized both Von Hayek and Ludwig Mises. It was ignorance which caused the crowd at CPAC to listen patiently to the gibberish in Milei’s presentation and not notice his frequent praise of Mussolini’s economic mentor, Wilfredo Pareto.
Needless to say, these policies have nothing to do with the American System policies of Donald Trump. In fact, it is the American System which earns direct attacks from Karl Marx himself and from all the post war Mt. Pelerin Society ideologues who set out to outsource and wreck the American economy. Immediately below you will find two pieces by Robert Ingraham detailing exactly what this witch’s brew is all about and how it has nothing to do with our salvation. In fact, it is a huge part of our economic ruin.
By Robert Ingraham
November 23, 2021
“Come One. Come All. It’s the ‘Thrilla in Manilla’. It’s the great Ali vs. Frazier rivalry. Get your tickets today!”
This is how the imaginary rivalry between Friedrich Hayek and John Maynard Keynes has been popularized,—sort of as a Battle of the Titans, only now in the economic arena. But unlike the real Ali and Frazier, who bloodied each other unmercifully, this is a delusory myth designed for the credulous. The only blood that will be spilt will come from the victims of British imperial economics.
Within the construct of this manufactured contest, we are told that there are only two alternatives for economic and financial policy: Big Government or Free Market. The fairy-tale narrative goes like this: Keynes’ “big government” views ruled the roost from the Great Depression into the 1970s, then to be knocked off its perch by the free-market ideas of Hayek, who held sway until the financial crises of 2007-2008, when Hayek’s followers were TKO’d by the resurgent influence of Keynes.
Will Keynes continue to reign as champ? Or will the scrappy Austrian make yet another comeback? Stay tuned. Cast your bets now!
If you believe any of this, there is a bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy.
In the 1920s and 30s, John Maynard Keynes, later to be anointed “1st Baron, Lord Keynes,” held sway at Cambridge University, while Friedrich Hayek toiled away across town, issuing his pleas for a return to 19th century British “liberalism,” from the London School of Economics. From these two locations, according to the narrative, sprang the Great Economic Debate which would define all economic policy for the remainder of the 20th century.
But this is fantasy, a deliberately-created mental trap, one in which it is demanded that you submit to the contrived parameters of the debate. In reality, all that differs between these two British subjects is their choice of methodology. Cosmetically, Keynes and Hayek may appear different, with personal choices of rouge and mascara, but butt naked and unadorned they are identical—Lombard Street tarts. Their fealty to the British financial empire is a fiercely held and shared commitment.
In reading both Hayek and Keynes, one comes away with the impression that the American Revolution never happened, that Alexander Hamilton was never born, and that Abraham Lincoln did not launch the greatest economic revolution in human history. None of this is ever mentioned by either of the “rivals,”—because their shared goal is to destroy the American economic tradition. The delinquent American children must be brought back into the embrace of the Mother Country.
Whether it’s Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty or Keynes’ General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, what wafts off the pages are the faint strains of “Rule Britannia,” like the last wail of a dying empire.
When Hayek’s Road to Serfdom was published, he sent a copy to Keynes. Months later, Keynes, then visiting America, wrote to Hayek: “The voyage has given me the chance to read your book properly. In my opinion it is a grand book. We all have the greatest reason to be grateful to you for saying so well what needs so much to be said. You will not expect me to accept quite all the economic dicta in it. But morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it; and not only in agreement with it, but in a deeply moved agreement.”
For his part, after Keynes death, Hayek wrote to his widow, Lydia, describing Keynes as “the one really great man I ever knew, and for whom I had unbounded admiration. The world will be a very much poorer place without him.” This was not simply a polite expression of commiseration. In reading over Hayek’s correspondence and pronouncements, it is very clear that he suffered from a life-long inferiority complex, vis-à-vis Keynes, who after all had been elevated to the peerage by the monarchy, an honor that Hayek could only dream of.
These are not the words of enemies, or even antagonists. Theirs was simply a polite “difference of opinion” about how to achieve the identical goal. As Keynes had written, they were in complete agreement “morally and philosophically.” By the early 20th century, febrile seizures were beginning to rack the City of London, and its oligarchical cultural axioms were crumbling. Keynes and Hayek merely offered two possible pathways to preserve oligarchical rule. And those pathways are not mutually exclusive, as witnessed in the 1980s super-stardom of their joint “love child” Milton Friedman.
This same commitment to the axioms of the British Empire still today dominates the Hillsdale College curriculum. On Nov. 14, 2021 College President Larry Arnn proudly announced a new class series offered by the College:—“Winston Churchill and Statesmanship.” In promoting the class, Arnn states that Churchill was “the greatest statesman of the 20th century—even one of the greatest in all of history.” Anglophilia permeates all things Hillsdale.
Lyndon LaRouche often stated, “Money is an idiot!” LaRouche’s views on money and credit cohere perfectly with Abraham Lincoln, who in his 1858 lecture, “Discoveries and Inventions,” is explicit that the sole source of all actual human wealth—all human happiness—lies in the power of the human mind to make new discoveries, i.e., to create revolutionary breakthroughs which transform human productivity and enhance human progress.
British monetarism, on the other hand, deliberately mis-identifies human wealth with money, an error that Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton or John Quincy Adams would never have fallen into.
British monetarism—whether of the Keynes or Hayek variety—has its roots in John Locke’s 1691 work Some Considerations on the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and the Raising of the Value of Money, where Locke defines money as a “special” kind of property, one imbued with almost magical powers, which “turns the wheels of trade.” Money is de facto the self-evident source of all wealth.
The British Empire, as also the earlier Dutch and Venetian empires, were all based on this empiricist notion of money. They were FINANCIAL empires,—PRIVATE financial empires, and this rule by a private financial elite defines the imperial system down to the present day world order of “globalization” and “The Great Reset.” During the 19th and 20th centuries, the City of London established the system of Private Central Banking (and “Central Bank money”) and spread that system worldwide, for the sole purpose of enforcing upon sovereign nations a “money system” and rule by a private financial elite.
It should come as no surprise that both Keynes and Hayek accept the dictatorial private Central Banking System as untouchable; nor that they both base all of their economic models, equations and policies on defending the axiomatic money system of the ruling class. For Keynes and Hayek both, it is all about money,—how to defend its value, how to manipulate it, and how to profit by it. Human beings and the physical economy are of little concern.
Take, for example, Keynes’ 1913 book Indian Currency and Finance, which he wrote as an employee of the Exchequer. At that time India had just undergone two major famines (both the direct result of British colonial policy), which had killed more than 10 million people. Yet, in Keynes’ book, famine and starvation are never mentioned; science, living standards and education are never mentioned; Indian leaders demanding freedom from British oppression are never mentioned. Instead, his only topic is reform of the Indian currency and banking system, so as to integrate Indian finances more fully into the London-based global financial system, to make India a more functional—and subservient—member of the British monetary empire.
If anything, Hayek was even more indifferent than Keynes as to the fate of the natives in the colonies.
In 1921 Keynes published his first “major” work, A Treatise on Probability. It was lavishly praised by Bertrand Russell, who called it “undoubtedly the most important work on probability that has appeared for a very long time,” and said that the “book as a whole is one which it is impossible to praise too highly.”
Now, in the field of “Probability Theory,” there are many different and competing varieties. Ludwig von Mises’ brother, Richard Edler von Mises, for example, was a prolific writer in this field, although Ludwig claimed to disagree with him in many of his conclusions. Nevertheless, Hayek and von Mises, as well as Keynes and his followers, all based their economic/financial theories on some version of Probability Theory, and the one thing they all have in common is the principle of UNCERTAINTY, i.e., that the future is UNKNOWABLE. As discussed earlier, for Hayek human progress is all “accidental,” arising out of unintended consequences which result from the workings of the “free market.”
Think about how ludicrous that is. LUDICROUS! We KNOW that if we go back the Moon and on to Mars we will unleash breakthroughs in science and technologies which will transform the human condition, and we will make discoveries which will dramatically affect mankind’s future. We KNOW that if we develop and deploy fusion energy, we will CREATE a resource which has the potential to uplift the conditions of life for every human being on the planet Earth. This is all willful. This is what Abraham Lincoln meant when he spoke of “Discoveries and Inventions.”
Yet this intentional creative Human Action is denied by Hayek and Keynes because their obsession is with money and the continued hegemony of the monied elite.
In 1934, through his powerful connections, Keynes wrangled a meeting with Franklin Roosevelt in the White House, where he bent FDR’s ear—and tried his patience—for more than an hour. After he left, Roosevelt remarked to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, “I saw your friend Keynes. He left a whole rigamarole of figures. He must be a mathematician rather than an economist.”
FDR’s sense of smell was working quite well for him that day. Mathematical probability theory, as deployed into the field of economics, has its origins entirely in the writings of Galileo Galilei (Concerning an Investigation on Dice, 1630), Giralamo Cardano (Book on Games of Chance, 1633), and Abraham de Moivre (Doctrine of Chances, 1718), and the economic/financial methods of both Hayek and Keynes resemble nothing so much as John Law, utilizing mathematical formulas at the gambling tables of Venice’s Ridotto casino. For the British twins, all economic processes are essentially unknowable. It is all chance. And it is all about money—not intentional human progress.
And it’s all designed—from Money, to the Central Banking System, to Free Trade, to the denial of National Sovereignty—to ruthlessly perpetuate the rule of the private British financial empire and to prevent the upward development of the people.
By Robert Ingraham
November 17, 2021
The first thing to understand about the “Austrian School” is that it doesn’t exist. What Hayek, von Mises and others put forward is not Austrian at all; it is imperial British Economics, specifically the economics of the 19th century British Empire.
The Road to Serfdom, certainly Friedrich Hayek’s most widely read work, was published in 1944. A more fitting title might have been “Lord Acton Speaks,” for the work is literally strewn with lengthy quotations from Acton.
Lord Acton was a British aristocrat who became a vocal and ardent supporter of the Confederacy during the American Civil War. After the South’s surrender, he wrote to Robert E. Lee that “I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo,” adding that he “deemed that you were fighting battles for our liberty, our progress, and our civilization.” In 1869 Acton was raised to the peerage by Queen Victoria, right about the time Victoria was taking personal control over the narcotics trafficking in India and China.
In addition to Lord Acton, other individuals idolized by Hayek, and repeatedly named by him, include John Stuart Mill and his father James Mill, both lifelong employees of the British East India Company, at a time when that Company was killing millions in India. James Mill was a protégé of Jeremy Bentham of In Defence of Usury and In Defense of Pederasty fame and the promoter of the Hedonistic (or Felicific) Calculus, which proclaims that all human (and economic) activity is driven by a desire for individual pleasure.
Another of Hayek’s icons is the 1st Viscount Morley of Blackburn, who was the Secretary of State for India between 1905 and 1911 and Lord President of the King’s Privy Council between 1910 and 1914, from which position he played a leading role in orchestrating events leading into World War I. Hayek calls Morley the “last of the great nineteenth-century Liberals.”
Others named glowingly by Hayek are Henry Sidgwick, A. V. Dicey (KC FBA), and Thomas Babington Macaulay (1st Baron Macaulay). Sidgwick and Dicey were both followers of Jeremy Bentham’s Philosophical Radicalism. At Cambridge, Sidgwick taught the young Bertrand Russell, while Dicey became a Professor of Law at the London School of Economics where he popularized the phrase “Rule of Law,” a term often heard today but one which, as defined by both Dicey and Hayek, bears no resemblance to U.S. Constitutional Law. Macaulay served as Britain’s Secretary of War between 1839 and 1841 where he directed the military attack on China during the genocidal First Opium War. He too was a member of Queen Victoria’s Privy Council.
Of all the British politicians from earlier generations, Hayek’s deepest admiration goes to William Gladstone, three times Prime Minister and four times Chancellor of the Exchequer. Like Lord Acton, Gladstone was a passionate admirer of the southern Confederacy and viewed the Civil War as a means to destroy the American Republic. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1861 when the City of London and the British Monarchy attempted to bankrupt the U.S. government and strong-arm Abraham Lincoln into accepting southern secession. In October 1862 Gladstone made a speech in which he said that Jefferson Davis had “made a nation,” and that it was now the duty of the European powers to “offer friendly aid in compromising the quarrel.” During Gladstone’s terms as Prime Minister he became an enforcer of what some have called the “Imperialism of Free Trade,” launching numerous of Queen Victoria’s “small wars” to enforce British financial global hegemony.
These are Hayek’s heroes. They are all British, mostly aristocrats, some murderers. Not a one is American. These are the individuals Hayek returns to repeatedly—Gladstone, Acton, Mill, etc. --not to Lincoln, not to Franklin, not to Hamilton. It is the British (oligarchical) outlook he worships. This to him is the high point of human civilization.
For those who have not read The Road to Serfdom, let me spare you the pain. For all the verbiage, it is a Johnny-One-Note production, or as Judy Garland would sing:
Poor Johnny one note sang out with gusto
And just overlorded the place
Poor Johnny one note, yelled willy nilly
Until he was blue in the face
For holding one note was his ace
Hayek’s message, —his One Note, repeated ad nauseam—is: “Liberty and Freedom Good; Totalitarianism and Collectivism Bad.” That’s it. That’s all he really says. It is a message designed for simpletons, which he pounds on over and over, like the ominous beating of a drum to galley slaves.
Repetitive beyond belief, The Road to Serfdom proclaims the pre-1900 British era of laissez faire economics as the Golden Age of Mankind. Never mentioned is that from 1776 to 1900, the British Empire murdered far, far more human beings—in India, Africa, China, the Caribbean and elsewhere—than Adolph Hitler ever dreamed of; nor, that the entirety of its financial and trading empire—the very economic system Hayek idolizes—was erected and maintained through mass-murder and narcotics trafficking; nor, that during those same decades the British Empire was the mortal enemy of the American Republic. Those realities are verboten topics and never appear in Hayek’s narrative. In Chapter 15, Hayek actually makes the incredible assertion, “I believe the standards of decency and fairness, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, to be as high, if not higher, in England than in any other country.” [!!!]
What Hayek is actually presenting is the seductive lure of the serpent in Paradise, who offers freedom and liberty in order to recruit you into Satan’s work. Hayek simply lies and misrepresents, as he entices you into supporting policies which have been the actual enemy of the principles of the American Republic.
What Hayek demands is that you limit your judgement to a simple binary choice: “Are you for Liberty and Freedom?"—or "Are you for Totalitarianism and Collectivism.” Confined to such a rigged choice, rational people will obviously opt for Freedom and Liberty. But is this an honest game that Hayek is playing?
What exactly do Freedom and Liberty mean to Hayek?
The subject of oligarchical versus republican culture will be the subject of the next installment in this series of articles. For now, let’s take an introductory peek into Hayek’s lack of human morality.
Hayek shrieks fiercely against collectivism and wraps himself in the guidon of individualism, a term that his sometimes friend Ayn Rand would later take to psychedelic extremes. Hayek declares the notion of the individual and individual rights to be paramount. However, this obviously begs the question (which Hayek never explores): What is the individual? What does it mean to be a human being?
Demonstrating an unbelievable shallowness of thinking, in presenting his concept of “individual liberty” Hayek plagiarizes, without giving credit, from the Anglo-Dutch agent John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, particularly from Locke’s discussion of human freedom as having derived from Man’s natural condition “in a State of Nature.” Throughout The Road to Serfdom there are also echoes of another Anglo-Dutch agent, Bernard de Mandeville, and his paean to oligarchical culture, The Fable of the Bees. That work proposes that a harmonious society may be obtained if each individual acts purely on the basis of their own selfish wants and desires. It is only a matter of degree from Mandeville and Locke to Thomas Hobbes’ notion of “each in a war of all against all,” as the basis for what Hayek calls beneficent human “competition.”
To support this pessimistic view of the human condition, one wherein we are all reduced to animals, Hayek makes an outrageous assertion that his definition of “western individualism” flows from the European Renaissance. It is in this argument, one he returns to repeatedly, where he asserts that human beings are condemned to exist in ignorance as to both the nature of the universe and the workings of an economy.
Consider that one of the most influential literary and scientific works of the Renaissance was Nicholas of Cusa’s On Learned Ignorance, a work wherein Cusa describes how Man proceeds from ignorance to the discovery of universal truthful scientific principles. This is grounded in the Christian concept of Imago Dei. Hayek’s beliefs are pre-Christian, as he insists that the human individual exists within a hostile world, one where universal truth is unknowable and events are governed by mysterious forces beyond our control (In this, he echoes the British imperialist Adam Smith).
If you think I am exaggerating, consider Hayek’s explicit view of the human individual, as it relates to economics:
“The only alternative to submission to the impersonal and seemingly irrational forces of the market is submission to an equally uncontrollable and therefore arbitrary power of other men.”
“It was men’s submission to the impersonal forces of the market that in the past has made possible the growth of a civilization.”
For Hayek, the Market has replaced God’s lawful creation as the unknowable and incomprehensible force all men must bow before.
In Chapter 15, Hayek’s attacks on collectivism and totalitarianism are exposed as a smokescreen. The mask comes off, and he zeros in on his true targets: the Sovereignty of nation states and American economic methods. The entirety of Chapter 15, titled “The Prospects of International Order,” is a sustained attack on the Principle of National Sovereignty.
Hayek says:
“Economic transactions between national bodies who are at the same time the supreme judges of their own behavior, who bow to no superior law, and whose representatives cannot be bound by any considerations but the immediate interest of their respective nations, must end in clashes of power.”
“We cannot hope for order or lasting peace after this war if states, large or small, regain unfettered sovereignty in the economic sphere.” (Compare this to Donald Trump’s defense of national sovereignty in his 2019 speech to the United Nations)
“The extent of the control over all life that economic control confers is nowhere better illustrated than in the field of foreign exchanges. . . Experience of most Continental countries has taught thoughtful people to regard this step as the decisive advance on the path to totalitarianism and the suppression of individual liberty.”
In reality, the invention of the modern sovereign Nation State was one of the crowning achievements of the Renaissance. Hayek now condemns national sovereignty to death. In its place he proposes a supra-national international authority which will impose British imperial finance and free trade on every nation.
Hayek says:
“An international authority which effectively limits the powers of the state over the individual will be one of the best safeguards of peace.”
“The form of international government under which certain strictly defined powers are transferred to an international authority, while in all other respects the individual countries remain responsible for their internal affairs, is, of course, that of federation.”
“The powers which must devolve on an international authority are not the new powers assumed by the states in recent times but. . . essentially THE POWERS OF THE ULTRA-LIBERAL ‘LAISSEZ FAIRE’ STATE. . . The need for such a super-national authority becomes indeed greater as the individual states more and more become units of economic administration, the actors rather than merely the supervisors of the economic scene.”
Hayek doesn’t stop there. He is too clever to attack Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Hamilton by name, so he turns his wrath on the German American economist Friedrich List. Today, List is most famous for his 1841 work The National System of Political Economy, but he actually lived in Pennsylvania from 1825 to 1831, became an American citizen, and in 1831 authored a work titled Outlines of American Political Economy. List was a fierce defender of the American Republic, and in his writings, he showed how the British financial and economic laissez faire methods were intended to secure world-wide British imperial domination.
For these heretical views, Hayek declares List and his writings to be totalitarian.
Get our free newsletter. Zero Spam.
