Great essay. Truth in all forms of economic systems is what Mao Tse Tung declared:
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun — during his speech “Problems on War and Strategy” at a plenary session on November 6, 1938. “Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army,”
Long ago I realized that the power behind most of the evil machinations in the world stemmed from the central banking system. When high profile people threatened to expose it, much less challenge it, they were invariably killed or disposed of in some manner.
“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” — Mayer Anschel Rothschild, 1790
Beyond the merchant/banking families having an obsession for worldly riches, they concurrently developed an even greater obsession with raw power in the world.
Since most of the families, and the founding Rothschilds themselves, were Eastern European Jews they figured out how to use their outward religious identity to their advantage as well. So although they were the most powerful cult in the world, they stayed hidden to the best of their ability and used their ownership of huge swaths of public media to brainwash people into thinking that they were the Ultimate Victims. (the “holocaust”)
They decided it would be better still to actually own their own country rather than being a minority in the other countries of the world. So they created the “State of Israel” which they claimed as their own, cleverly using Old Testament mythology and their Ultimate Victim status to claim that they were simply returning to land that God had ordained to be theirs (God as Real Estate Agent).
They called it ‘Israel’ to maintain the Old Testament scam even though none of them had actual ancestry from that part of the world. They called it a “Homeland of the Jewish people” and strong-armed as many Jewish-identified people living in other countries to move there as they could. And the Greater Israel Project was born along with a long-term plan to literally rule the world from the country that they owned.
This is why Gordon Duff, himself of Jewish background, says “Israel is NOT the homeland of the Jewish people — it’s the homeland of global organized crime.”
Hi Dawn -- thanks for your comment. Yes, I paused before I characterized the Old Testament as 'mythology,' since it's apparently a mixture of history, allegory, religious beliefs, expressions of praise and devotion and mythology. So what are your views on the Old Testament - and where would I see your content?
The passage below is a critique of Mercantilism, written by Friedrich Engels in his 1844 work, "Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy":
"This political economy or science of enrichment born of the merchants' mutual envy and greed, bears on its brow the mark of the most detestable selfishness. People still lived in the naive belief that gold and silver were wealth, and therefore considered nothing more urgent than the prohibition everywhere of the export of the "precious" metals. The nations faced each other like misers, each clasping to himself with both arms his precious moneybag, eyeing his neighbours with envy and distrust. Every conceivable means was employed to lure from the nations with whom one had commerce as much ready cash as possible, and to retain snugly within the customs boundary all which had happily been gathered in.
If this principle had been rigorously carried through trade would have been killed. People therefore began to go beyond this first stage. They came to appreciate that capital locked up in a chest was dead capital, while capital in circulation increased continuously. They then became more sociable, sent off their ducats as call birds to bring others back with them, and realised that there is no harm in paying A too much for his commodity so long as it can be disposed of to B at a higher price.
On this basis the mercantile system was built. The avaricious character of trade was to some extent already beginning to be hidden. The nations drew slightly nearer to one another, concluded trade and friendship agreements, did business with one another and, for the sake of larger profits, treated one another with all possible love and kindness. But in fact there was still the old avarice and selfishness and from time to time this erupted in wars, which in that day were all based on trade jealousy. In these wars it also became evident that trade, like robbery, is based on the law of the strong hand. No scruples whatever were felt about exacting by cunning or violence such treaties as were held to be the most advantageous.
The cardinal point in the whole mercantile system is the theory of the balance of trade. For as it still subscribed to the dictum that gold and silver constitute wealth, only such transactions as would finally bring ready cash into the country were considered profitable. To ascertain this, exports were compared with imports. When more had been exported than imported, it was believed that the difference had come into the country in ready cash, and that the country was richer by that difference. The art of the economists, therefore, consisted in ensuring that at the end of each year exports should show a favourable balance over imports; and for the sake of this ridiculous illusion thousands of men have been slaughtered! Trade, too, has had its crusades and inquisitions.
The eighteenth century, the century of revolution, also revolutionised economics. But just as all the revolutions of this century were one-sided and bogged down in antitheses -- just as abstract materialism was set in opposition to abstract spiritualism, the republic to monarchy, the social contract to divine right -- likewise the economic revolution did not get beyond antithesis. The premises remained everywhere in force: materialism did not attack the Christian contempt for and humiliation of Man, and merely posited Nature instead of the Christian God as the Absolute confronting Man. In politics no one dreamt of examining the premises of the state as such. It did not occur to economics to question the validity of private property. Therefore, the new economics was only half an advance. It was obliged to betray and to disavow its own premises, to have recourse to sophistry and hypocrisy so as to cover up the contradictions in which it became entangled, so as to reach the conclusions to which it was driven not by its premises but by the humane spirit of the century. Thus economics took on a philanthropic character. It withdrew its favour from the producers and bestowed it on the consumers. It affected a solemn abhorrence of the bloody terror of the mercantile system, and proclaimed trade to be a bond of friendship and union among nations as among individuals. All was pure splendour and magnificence -- yet the premises reasserted themselves soon enough, and in contrast to this sham philanthropy produced the Malthusian population theory -- the crudest, most barbarous theory that ever existed, a system of despair which struck down all those beautiful phrases about philanthropy and world citizenship. The premises begot and reared the factory system and modern slavery, which yields nothing in inhumanity and cruelty to ancient slavery. Modern economics -- the system of free trade based on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations -- reveals itself to be that same hypocrisy, inconsistency and immorality which now confront free humanity in every sphere.
But was Smith's system, then, not an advance? Of course it was, and a necessary advance at that. It was necessary to overthrow the mercantile system with its monopolies and hindrances to trade, so that the true consequences of private property could come to light. It was necessary for all these petty, local and national considerations to recede into the background, so that the struggle of our time could become a universal human struggle. It was necessary for the theory of private property to leave the purely empirical path of merely objective inquiry and to acquire a more scientific character which would also make it responsible for the consequences, and thus transfer the matter to a universally human sphere. It was necessary to carry the immorality contained in the old economics to its highest pitch, by attempting to deny it and by the hypocrisy introduced (a necessary result of that attempt). All this lay in the nature of the case. We gladly concede that it is only the justification and accomplishment of free trade that has enabled us to go beyond the economics of private property; but we must at the same time have the right to expose the utter theoretical and practical nullity of this free trade."
This leads to the legal system we have today: admiralty law or the law of the seas. Not natural law or common law. What is the BAR exam that attorneys take to practice law? BAR stands for British Accredited Registry, which means in simple terms, that your attorney doesn't work for you, but the Crown, ie as in King Charles, even if the attorney takes your money.
As an extension to the system described here, the financial center of the global slave empire is the City of London (not the city we call London). It is separate from London and not subject to it's jurisdiction and it is a corporation. The military center is Washington, D.C. which is the reason why we have forever wars, and The Vatican. Washington, D.C. is a corporation and is not part of the landmass we call the U.S. Same is true of the Vatican. It is not a part of Rome. The US takes in trillions of dollars in taxes, yet has to borrow money from the Federal Reserve. Why? Too many boomers? That is a SMOKESCREEN. It is because the IRS is a Collection Agency for the City of London!
Take a look at the 2017 video of Trump's visit to the Queen. Why was he walking in FRONT of the Queen? That is not protocol. Why was Prince Charles bringing up the rear in the Troop inspection. It was Prince Charles who was supposed to do that. Why was the Royal band playing our military songs? None of it protocol. The signing of the Virginia Colony's ledger was perhaps the most significant act of that rather strange display of protocol. The Queen ceded control of the US corporation to the President. breaking up the trifecta. Now you know why the globalists tried three color revolutions, including now to depose President Trump.
We didn't win the Revolutionary war and even if we did, we ceded control back in 1812, despite what history says. They are all LIES.
you wrote " Now you know why the globalists tried three color revolutions, including now to depose President Trump."
the globalists and transnationalists have way more power than Trump. Trump is doing the bidding of some powerful faction. According to Simon Dixon (look him up on youtube and his website https://www.simondixon.com) the faction that controls Trump is the Financial Industrial Complex (FIC) (i.e. JP Morgan, Blackrock etc.). There are 2 other factions, the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and the Technical Industrial Complex (TIC) (i.e. Palantir, Tesla, Oracle, OpenAI etc.)
They appear to be more organised this time; while Congress squats and dickers President Trump appears to be pursuing an established plan, backed by planners with observably more skill than his first term amateurs.
I had thought that MAGA must have recruited some experienced military planner, possibly someone like purged Gen. Stanley McChrystal, but this essay portrays a coherent history. This also explains the persistence of the arrangements across centuries. Our current PM, Mark Carney, has been chosen and groomed to fulfill other parties' agendas.
Still reading... but this error popped out: Lombards are not Venetians, they were German barbarians who invaded Italy in the 6th century. Longobardi, long beards.
Mercantilism and fascism share similarities in their focus on state power and economic control, emphasizing the wealth and strength of the nation over individual interests. Both ideologies prioritize national interests and often involve government intervention in the economy to achieve these goals.
Mercantilism and fascism are both economic and political ideologies that emphasize the power of the state and the importance of national interests. They share several key characteristics, particularly in their approach to economic control and societal organization.
Key Similarities
Focus on State Power
* State Control: Both ideologies prioritize the strength and wealth of the nation, often at the expense of individual rights and interests.
* Government Intervention: They advocate for significant government intervention in the economy to promote national interests.
Economic Objectives
* Wealth Accumulation: Both mercantilism and fascism aim to enhance national wealth through control of resources and trade.
* Nationalism: They emphasize the importance of national identity and unity, often promoting policies that favor domestic industries over foreign competition.
Conclusion
Both mercantilism and fascism reflect a historical trend where the state plays a dominant role in economic affairs, prioritizing national interests over individual freedoms. Their similarities highlight a common theme of state-centric ideologies that seek to consolidate power and control resources for the benefit of the nation [private investors].
Well written. Though, when you write "with a proliferating system of state banks that collectively performed many of its functions”, we didnt even get back to the situation the jacksonians destroyed in 1913, we didnt get banking/finance/monetary matters deeply centralized, standardized, and managed/coordinated by a relatively small number of networked powerful-special-interest-groups until the advent of the so called Neo Liberal Era well after WW2
Such a helpful article as I have struggled with these concepts for a long time! The Larouche group believes the main banking power still resides in London and that the US is run by these interests using British royals as intermediaries. I note the Larouche people will never give specific names, however. Telling examples were Obama being treated as a subordinate in his visit with the Queen/Royals and G W Bush being quite intimidated w the Queens visit to the US. Trump does not appear to be a British puppet butrather a Zionist puppet. the Balfour declaration was a direct British gov communication to a Rothchild suggesting the Rothchilds were behind Zionism, however. I will be sure to check out your references.
Nicely done
Genius!
Great essay. Truth in all forms of economic systems is what Mao Tse Tung declared:
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun — during his speech “Problems on War and Strategy” at a plenary session on November 6, 1938. “Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army,”
Long ago I realized that the power behind most of the evil machinations in the world stemmed from the central banking system. When high profile people threatened to expose it, much less challenge it, they were invariably killed or disposed of in some manner.
“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” — Mayer Anschel Rothschild, 1790
Beyond the merchant/banking families having an obsession for worldly riches, they concurrently developed an even greater obsession with raw power in the world.
Since most of the families, and the founding Rothschilds themselves, were Eastern European Jews they figured out how to use their outward religious identity to their advantage as well. So although they were the most powerful cult in the world, they stayed hidden to the best of their ability and used their ownership of huge swaths of public media to brainwash people into thinking that they were the Ultimate Victims. (the “holocaust”)
They decided it would be better still to actually own their own country rather than being a minority in the other countries of the world. So they created the “State of Israel” which they claimed as their own, cleverly using Old Testament mythology and their Ultimate Victim status to claim that they were simply returning to land that God had ordained to be theirs (God as Real Estate Agent).
They called it ‘Israel’ to maintain the Old Testament scam even though none of them had actual ancestry from that part of the world. They called it a “Homeland of the Jewish people” and strong-armed as many Jewish-identified people living in other countries to move there as they could. And the Greater Israel Project was born along with a long-term plan to literally rule the world from the country that they owned.
This is why Gordon Duff, himself of Jewish background, says “Israel is NOT the homeland of the Jewish people — it’s the homeland of global organized crime.”
You might like my content. Old Testament is not mythology, but since most people don't know what it entails, they don't know the truth of the matter.
Hi Dawn -- thanks for your comment. Yes, I paused before I characterized the Old Testament as 'mythology,' since it's apparently a mixture of history, allegory, religious beliefs, expressions of praise and devotion and mythology. So what are your views on the Old Testament - and where would I see your content?
Click on my name "Awaiting Dawn." There are several posts relating to the State of Israel as opposed to the House or ancestral nation of Israel.
The passage below is a critique of Mercantilism, written by Friedrich Engels in his 1844 work, "Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy":
"This political economy or science of enrichment born of the merchants' mutual envy and greed, bears on its brow the mark of the most detestable selfishness. People still lived in the naive belief that gold and silver were wealth, and therefore considered nothing more urgent than the prohibition everywhere of the export of the "precious" metals. The nations faced each other like misers, each clasping to himself with both arms his precious moneybag, eyeing his neighbours with envy and distrust. Every conceivable means was employed to lure from the nations with whom one had commerce as much ready cash as possible, and to retain snugly within the customs boundary all which had happily been gathered in.
If this principle had been rigorously carried through trade would have been killed. People therefore began to go beyond this first stage. They came to appreciate that capital locked up in a chest was dead capital, while capital in circulation increased continuously. They then became more sociable, sent off their ducats as call birds to bring others back with them, and realised that there is no harm in paying A too much for his commodity so long as it can be disposed of to B at a higher price.
On this basis the mercantile system was built. The avaricious character of trade was to some extent already beginning to be hidden. The nations drew slightly nearer to one another, concluded trade and friendship agreements, did business with one another and, for the sake of larger profits, treated one another with all possible love and kindness. But in fact there was still the old avarice and selfishness and from time to time this erupted in wars, which in that day were all based on trade jealousy. In these wars it also became evident that trade, like robbery, is based on the law of the strong hand. No scruples whatever were felt about exacting by cunning or violence such treaties as were held to be the most advantageous.
The cardinal point in the whole mercantile system is the theory of the balance of trade. For as it still subscribed to the dictum that gold and silver constitute wealth, only such transactions as would finally bring ready cash into the country were considered profitable. To ascertain this, exports were compared with imports. When more had been exported than imported, it was believed that the difference had come into the country in ready cash, and that the country was richer by that difference. The art of the economists, therefore, consisted in ensuring that at the end of each year exports should show a favourable balance over imports; and for the sake of this ridiculous illusion thousands of men have been slaughtered! Trade, too, has had its crusades and inquisitions.
The eighteenth century, the century of revolution, also revolutionised economics. But just as all the revolutions of this century were one-sided and bogged down in antitheses -- just as abstract materialism was set in opposition to abstract spiritualism, the republic to monarchy, the social contract to divine right -- likewise the economic revolution did not get beyond antithesis. The premises remained everywhere in force: materialism did not attack the Christian contempt for and humiliation of Man, and merely posited Nature instead of the Christian God as the Absolute confronting Man. In politics no one dreamt of examining the premises of the state as such. It did not occur to economics to question the validity of private property. Therefore, the new economics was only half an advance. It was obliged to betray and to disavow its own premises, to have recourse to sophistry and hypocrisy so as to cover up the contradictions in which it became entangled, so as to reach the conclusions to which it was driven not by its premises but by the humane spirit of the century. Thus economics took on a philanthropic character. It withdrew its favour from the producers and bestowed it on the consumers. It affected a solemn abhorrence of the bloody terror of the mercantile system, and proclaimed trade to be a bond of friendship and union among nations as among individuals. All was pure splendour and magnificence -- yet the premises reasserted themselves soon enough, and in contrast to this sham philanthropy produced the Malthusian population theory -- the crudest, most barbarous theory that ever existed, a system of despair which struck down all those beautiful phrases about philanthropy and world citizenship. The premises begot and reared the factory system and modern slavery, which yields nothing in inhumanity and cruelty to ancient slavery. Modern economics -- the system of free trade based on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations -- reveals itself to be that same hypocrisy, inconsistency and immorality which now confront free humanity in every sphere.
But was Smith's system, then, not an advance? Of course it was, and a necessary advance at that. It was necessary to overthrow the mercantile system with its monopolies and hindrances to trade, so that the true consequences of private property could come to light. It was necessary for all these petty, local and national considerations to recede into the background, so that the struggle of our time could become a universal human struggle. It was necessary for the theory of private property to leave the purely empirical path of merely objective inquiry and to acquire a more scientific character which would also make it responsible for the consequences, and thus transfer the matter to a universally human sphere. It was necessary to carry the immorality contained in the old economics to its highest pitch, by attempting to deny it and by the hypocrisy introduced (a necessary result of that attempt). All this lay in the nature of the case. We gladly concede that it is only the justification and accomplishment of free trade that has enabled us to go beyond the economics of private property; but we must at the same time have the right to expose the utter theoretical and practical nullity of this free trade."
This leads to the legal system we have today: admiralty law or the law of the seas. Not natural law or common law. What is the BAR exam that attorneys take to practice law? BAR stands for British Accredited Registry, which means in simple terms, that your attorney doesn't work for you, but the Crown, ie as in King Charles, even if the attorney takes your money.
As an extension to the system described here, the financial center of the global slave empire is the City of London (not the city we call London). It is separate from London and not subject to it's jurisdiction and it is a corporation. The military center is Washington, D.C. which is the reason why we have forever wars, and The Vatican. Washington, D.C. is a corporation and is not part of the landmass we call the U.S. Same is true of the Vatican. It is not a part of Rome. The US takes in trillions of dollars in taxes, yet has to borrow money from the Federal Reserve. Why? Too many boomers? That is a SMOKESCREEN. It is because the IRS is a Collection Agency for the City of London!
Take a look at the 2017 video of Trump's visit to the Queen. Why was he walking in FRONT of the Queen? That is not protocol. Why was Prince Charles bringing up the rear in the Troop inspection. It was Prince Charles who was supposed to do that. Why was the Royal band playing our military songs? None of it protocol. The signing of the Virginia Colony's ledger was perhaps the most significant act of that rather strange display of protocol. The Queen ceded control of the US corporation to the President. breaking up the trifecta. Now you know why the globalists tried three color revolutions, including now to depose President Trump.
We didn't win the Revolutionary war and even if we did, we ceded control back in 1812, despite what history says. They are all LIES.
you wrote " Now you know why the globalists tried three color revolutions, including now to depose President Trump."
the globalists and transnationalists have way more power than Trump. Trump is doing the bidding of some powerful faction. According to Simon Dixon (look him up on youtube and his website https://www.simondixon.com) the faction that controls Trump is the Financial Industrial Complex (FIC) (i.e. JP Morgan, Blackrock etc.). There are 2 other factions, the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and the Technical Industrial Complex (TIC) (i.e. Palantir, Tesla, Oracle, OpenAI etc.)
They appear to be more organised this time; while Congress squats and dickers President Trump appears to be pursuing an established plan, backed by planners with observably more skill than his first term amateurs.
I had thought that MAGA must have recruited some experienced military planner, possibly someone like purged Gen. Stanley McChrystal, but this essay portrays a coherent history. This also explains the persistence of the arrangements across centuries. Our current PM, Mark Carney, has been chosen and groomed to fulfill other parties' agendas.
Still reading... but this error popped out: Lombards are not Venetians, they were German barbarians who invaded Italy in the 6th century. Longobardi, long beards.
https://alexkrainer.substack.com/p/yuuge-trump-withdraws-us-from-66?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1063805&post_id=184052040&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=cz447&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
one of the brilliant piece of work about global money mafia thank you very much
I just printed this out now and sitting down to read it.
Brilliant 👏
Got curious and here’s a brief AI comparison:
Mercantilism and fascism share similarities in their focus on state power and economic control, emphasizing the wealth and strength of the nation over individual interests. Both ideologies prioritize national interests and often involve government intervention in the economy to achieve these goals.
Wikipedia
marottaonmoney.com
Overview of Mercantilism and Fascism
Mercantilism and fascism are both economic and political ideologies that emphasize the power of the state and the importance of national interests. They share several key characteristics, particularly in their approach to economic control and societal organization.
Key Similarities
Focus on State Power
* State Control: Both ideologies prioritize the strength and wealth of the nation, often at the expense of individual rights and interests.
* Government Intervention: They advocate for significant government intervention in the economy to promote national interests.
Economic Objectives
* Wealth Accumulation: Both mercantilism and fascism aim to enhance national wealth through control of resources and trade.
* Nationalism: They emphasize the importance of national identity and unity, often promoting policies that favor domestic industries over foreign competition.
Conclusion
Both mercantilism and fascism reflect a historical trend where the state plays a dominant role in economic affairs, prioritizing national interests over individual freedoms. Their similarities highlight a common theme of state-centric ideologies that seek to consolidate power and control resources for the benefit of the nation [private investors].
So it follows the political class are not representatives, rather should be called agents
Really enjoyed this one. Thank you.
Well written. Though, when you write "with a proliferating system of state banks that collectively performed many of its functions”, we didnt even get back to the situation the jacksonians destroyed in 1913, we didnt get banking/finance/monetary matters deeply centralized, standardized, and managed/coordinated by a relatively small number of networked powerful-special-interest-groups until the advent of the so called Neo Liberal Era well after WW2
Such a helpful article as I have struggled with these concepts for a long time! The Larouche group believes the main banking power still resides in London and that the US is run by these interests using British royals as intermediaries. I note the Larouche people will never give specific names, however. Telling examples were Obama being treated as a subordinate in his visit with the Queen/Royals and G W Bush being quite intimidated w the Queens visit to the US. Trump does not appear to be a British puppet butrather a Zionist puppet. the Balfour declaration was a direct British gov communication to a Rothchild suggesting the Rothchilds were behind Zionism, however. I will be sure to check out your references.