Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times


IDEOLOGY AND ETHICS SURVEY
Additional Commentary and References

16. How is real wealth created in American society?
  A strong centralization.viewpoint:  


A strong decentralization.viewpoint:
*
It takes money to make money, and  
*
Real wealth is about creating quality trad-
economies of scale to get real growth    
able items and not financial manipulation
*
Government and central bank reflect  
*
Creation must focus on grass roots entre-
necessary "scientific management."  
preneurial calculation and automation
*
Businessmen cause dysfunction from  
*
Government and central banks generally
  greed. This requires interventionism.    
do more to distort than help the economy

Sample argument (statist) view: The real wealth creation process in America starts with government spending that stimulates the economy. It also includes major government funded research and development programs and large corporations that use their vast staff and financial resources to expand their businesses. What has made America great is that we have developed a powerful government and large companies that have tremendous experience, financial resources, and expertise. They are able to pool their resources to achieve large economies of scale. As examples, government has advanced science and technology by providing major funding to corporate subcontractors in the space program. Government has created major highways in the 20th century. We necessarily have to depend on government to handle major projects rather than the private sector. This is why the government has to step in and periodically bail out major industrial companies to prop up their sectors. The creation of a mixed economy of government and capitalism was a great achievement of the 20th century that combines the best of each. There were very sound reasons to incorporate elements of socialism. Once Americans left their own farms and farming communities beginning in the late 19th century, they lost much of their "Jeffersonian" self-sufficiency. They became more atomized in big cities and found themselves more vulnerable in hierarchical and specialized manufacturing and service jobs. They felt they needed help from other sources such as government and organized labor. These other sources may not have had all the answers, but at least they helped provide partial solutions and helped Americans avoid being left completely out in the cold. You must make sure that you have friendly people in government and elsewhere looking out for your group and individual interests. We also need government and central bank intervention to correct imbalances in the economy, such as when consumer demand slacks off due to a rise in consumer savings. Without centralized fine-tuning, a complex advanced industrial economy is incapable of adjusting itself. Central planning can head off possible economic crises and maintain full employment.
. . .


Sample argument (libertarian) view: The real wealth creation process begins on a grass roots level through the process of entrepreneurial calculation. Here, the entrepreneur creates a viable business plan that identifies market demand for a new product concept. He then works backwards to see if he can achieve a desirable return on investment after paying for labor, materials, and other production factors. His value proposition usually entails a product that offers a superior ratio of value to price for the consumer compared to what is currently on the market. In addition, the continuing industrial revolution has been all about investing in ever more advanced generations of automation. Nothing can continually scale up productivity like advanced automation, which requires major continuing investment in engineering and scientific infrastructure. Everything else, to include setting of monetary policy by a central bank and fiscal policy by the federal government should be mostly irrelevant in a healthy economy. Most of the best new products and real job creation come from smaller entrepreneurial businesses, which are better suited for innovation than big corporations or government. In the 19th century, the private sector was able to fund universities, roads, and public works without government assistance, and handle these projects more efficiently. Government and the privately-owned central bank muscled in on the private sector in the 20th century mostly as a result of crooked dealings. It, along with controlled national media, has created a world of illusion. As greedy as private businessmen might be, government officials can be every bit a greedy --except they are much more dangerous because they are backed by the police power of the state. In contrast, greedy private businessmen are constrained by the voluntary nature of a free market. The best "trust-buster" policy involves preserving the right of entry of new competitors in a free market, and not government intervention which often favors politically-connected monopolies behind the scenes. The best way to raise wages is to have plenty of thriving businesses around in a free market environment that can afford to lure productive people away from exploitive companies, and not by going on strike to demand pay raises or by inviting government intervention to resolve disputes.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY:
(Last updated 9 Aug 2007 by William B. Fox)

The strong centralization view provided above to the left is the official establishment view that has prevailed in Washington, D.C. and national media since FDR's New Deal. This is also the economic view point that has been taught in virtually all of our federally-funded universities since they were swept by the "Keynesian Revolution" during the depths of the Great Depression.

In my commentary for question 15, I explained the most fundamental problem with this viewpoint. The underlying nature of "government" is ultimately about force, politics, and bureaucracy, all of which has very little to do with sound economics, "scientific management," or productive wealth creation on an entrepreneurial level. I provide the example where the private operation SpaceShipOne is more than a hundred times more cost effective in delivering a given weight into orbit than NASA.

I would not say that each of these views is "wrong," but rather they capture more the exceptions to the rule than the general rule. It can take a certain amount of money to make money, although one can quickly reach a point of diminishing returns by simply throwing money at problems rather than scrupulously creating realistic business plans that address market realities and getting the hands-on experience required to thoroughly understand product development and market realities (please see my discussion of entrepreneurial calculation later).

Government and central bank policy can reflect forms of "scientific management," although I think most close observers of government politicians, bureaucrats, and private central bankers would agree with me that over the long run they are generally more interested in appearing "scientific" (while following a covert political agendas) than actually being scientific. Given the ability of government bureaucrats to continue living off of generalized taxes no matter how badly they screw up, or the ability of central bankers to live off fees for handling debt issues and kick backs for inside information regardless of how badly their monetary policies distort the economy, all these entities certainly have far more latitude to follow covert political agendas and injure the public than entrepreneurs who run private businesses that must remain sensitive to a free market to survive.

Lastly, while it is true that we can find quite a lot of greed and social irresponsibility among private businessmen, it is also very possible that the key members of the government who claim that they can resolve this issue through government intervention are even more unscrupulous and even more irresponsible than the people they pretend to regulate. Government officials often selectively intervene against little guys to give the appearance that they are "doing something," while forming quiet partnerships with the biggest malefactors of all. A class example is the quiet truce and areas of collaboration that once existed between former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and Meyer Lansky, the Jewish supremacist crime boss of American organized crime. Please see Final Judgment by Michael Collins Piper.

Therefore, when one is forced to deal with a corrupt government, the private citizen who champions honesty and integrity across the board is now faced with the frustration of paying taxes to a government that is worse than being simply incompetent and ineffective. He must use his own resources to independently fight the top malefactors that government officials are secretly in partnership with. Even worse, he must use up more of his own resources to expose corrupt government officials who are partnered with corrupt businessmen. When one adds up the three way total costs that involve first paying taxes for nothing, then exposing and fighting corrupt and incompetent people in the government, and then on top of all this fighting the malefactors in the private sector, one might be faced with a situation that is more than three times as expensive and dangerous than if the private individual only had to deal with a malefactor on his own in a purely libertarian society, purged of the fantasy that a highly centralized federal government is really there to help him.

Most productive new jobs in our society are created by small businesses. As businesses grow larger, they tend to become more bureaucratic and focused on maintaining the status quo and bolstering top management perquisites than upon real innovation. Many large companies prefer to buy innovation by gobbling up small businesses rather than by trying to invent things or make new discoveries in house. As a former stock broker I have heard industry insiders comment upon this pattern over and over again in industries ranging from gold mining to high tech. In Part Four of my robot series, I talk about how various investment classics such as The Warren Buffet Way by Robert Hagstrom and Beating the Street by Peter Lynch consistently extol lean and mean,decentralized, transparent, focused, hands-on, market-responsive, no-frills companies. The blockbuster In Search of Excellence by Waterman and Peters and a whole genre of management guru literature that followed this classic work echoed a similar theme of "lean form and value-driven."

It is true that for certain situations in certain industries, size can be very important to achieve economies of scale. This may be particularly true in manufacturing and assembly industries that can drive down unit costs by achieving a high level of throughput with a huge plant, such as a beer distillery, auto assembly plant, or certain computer chip manufacturers.

However, even here we find that quality control problems sky rocket as management and information input systems start centralizing. There only so many inputs that central planners can handle before they suffer from information overload. Central planners also tend to be further removed from the point of action where they can accurately observe what is actually taking place.

Therefore, it is not uncommon to see massive manufacturing and assembly operations try to embed within themselves very decentralized systems for encouraging innovation, schedule optimization, and tight quality control. Henry Ford repeatedly talked about his need to provide incentives for shop floor innovation within his massive manufacturing facilities in My Life and Work.

Unfortunately whether justified by real world performance or not, the huge central planning apparatus of big government and a big central bank had already become a fact of life during the Great Depression. Often academic theory follows the political reality rather than the other way around. The same special interests that created the Federal Reserve were also endowing major professorships at Ivy League universities as well as a lions share of financial support for America's two political parties. Their motivations were not always academic.

As an example of a key special interest group, by the late 20th century over two thirds of the funding for the Democratic Party, and over half of the funding for Republican Party came from the Jewish Lobby. This is the same interest group that pushed for such extreme left wing causes as open borders to Third World illegal immigration beginning in the mid-1960's.

Earlier the Rothschilds and their front men such as J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller had founded the privately owned Federal Reserve. Jacob Schiff, a key leader of the Jewish community, played an important role in funding the Japanese victory of over the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War. He also provided key funding for the Bolshevik takeover of Russia.

Some very powerful forces indeed were actively pushing for increasing socialism across the board in America. For those who wanted to "go along to get along," they found that their bread was now buttered on the side of offering highly refined intellectual arguments that supported expansion in the size and interventionism of a big government and a big central bank. Two examples of books that document the subversive nature of this takeover by Fabian socialists are Keynes at Harvard and The Great Deceit: Social Pseudo-Sciences. They were published in the 1960's by the Veritas Foundation, a study group of Harvard alumni who included Archibald B. Roosevelt, grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt.

The decentralization viewpoint


I think that it is important to revisit basic definitions for real wealth creation and successful entrepreneurial calculation. These definitions may seem a bit "dry" to many readers who are not particularly interested in economics. However, they can start to get really interesting once a person begins to read the lines and understands that most of the economic activity in America today is severely decoupled from these simple definitions. This is both a cause and an effect (symptom) for why this country is in such serious trouble. An important part of understanding these definitions involves understanding what they are not, namely understanding how they are very different from the economic fallacies and other myths perpetrated by crooked politicians, unscrupulous businessmen, and parasitic special interests looking to get a free lunch out of the public.

An important rule of economics is that in the long run there are no free lunches. This is very similar to the principle of conservation of mass and energy in physics. For every economic action, there are both real costs and opportunity costs (or what might have been done in the place of a particular action that could have been better, or what Frederic Bastiat called "what is not seen"). There are also intangible as well as tangible long term consequences. Sometimes the intangible costs of an economic action may be very serious and vastly more negative than the short term benefits. For example, by the end of the so-called Reconstruction era in America (1865-1876), the long term social consequences of earlier decisions in the 1600's to introduce black slavery into America were far more negative than anything positive that resulted from shorter term cash flow gains. (Incidentally, most of the slave trade of the colonial era was run by Jews based in Newport, Rhode Island). The extreme social costs included the battlefield deaths of some 640,000 Americans, the destruction of half the wealth of the South, loss of white cohesion and identity due to miscegenation, and the destruction of states' rights and other restraints on the growth of unlimited neo-Jacobin federal government.

Real wealth creation usually means increasing the ability to produce useful things of higher quality at steadily lower prices that can compete in a free market economy. The extent to which an entrepreneur can offer a product with higher quality at a relatively lower price compared to his competition is called the "value proposition." In an advanced industrial economy, the ability to continually deliver a "value proposition" usually implies steadily increasing productivity growth with ever more advanced generations of automation equipment and sophisticated technology. It also implies honest market feedback mechanisms (possible only in a free market and not a socialist system where bureaucrats set prices) so that all the different economic players in a complex economy can rationally adjust their production and demand for goods and services relative to each other.

The process of entrepreneurial calculation involves looking at the potential market demand for a given product idea, and then working backwards to see if the costs of creating, producing, and distributing the product are likely to come in low enough to justify the risk of going ahead with the project. The classic approach taught in most business schools involves drawing out a long time line, and assigning "up arrows" to "cash flow in" (or return on investment), and "down arrows" to costs (to include initial investment), and then discounting all cash flows backwards with a discount factor to adjust for risk and time value of money. All of this computes a particular net present value for the project in question.

Successful entrepreneurial calculation is usually often highly targeted towards very specific markets. It is also usually highly targeted towards very specific product ideas for those markets and very specific business plans to bring the costs of new product development, manufacture, and distribution in line with the expected return from market demand. This is why real wealth creation often takes place on a grass roots level, that is by innovators and business entrepreneurs who like to tinker with improving their products. It also requires people who thoroughly understand their own businesses and markets. Last, but not least, it requires people with the savings and discipline to maintain long term reinvestment in their businesses to keep them competitive both on a local and global level.

In my "I, Robot Entrepreneur" series I spend quite a lot of time discussing in detail the nuts and bolts of successful entrepreneurship in an advanced industrial society. Please see "Part 4: Where and How Do We Make Money?" and "Part 5: Robo Political Economy." I covered the mobile robotics revolution because I see it as the latest and greatest phase of the continuing industrial revolution that has been a key to Western economic progress since the mid 19th century.

Many unscrupulous leaders in our society try to forego the proven principles of sound economic development whenever they feel that they can accomplish quick gain by cutting corners and camouflaging their greed with rationalizations and economic fallacies. However, over the long run when they cheat the system society overall is poorer for it. In order to engage in successful entrepreneurial calculation over the long run, entrepreneurs require a certain minimal level of honest economic information, political stability, and respect for private property rights.

It is hard to create an enduring entrepreneurial base when the whole economic system is based on massive lies. A good introduction to basic economic fallacies still rampant in America today can be found in Economics in One Lesson (PDF link) by Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993). This writer was an extremely intelligent, learned, and articulate economic journalist who did an outstanding job of explaining basic economic concepts in layman's language.

In my commentary for question fifteen, I discuss the fallacy of the broken window, which was covered by both the famous French economist Frederic Bastiat and the economic journalist Henry Hazlitt. Even though they debunked this fallacy long ago, we still hear politicians, central bankers, and their court economists talk about the alleged beneficial economic effects of massive government spending used to promulgate war and also to repair damage from natural disasters. The truth is that fomenting wars for bogus reasons is a proven method for politicians to clamp down on domestic dissent and deflect attention away from real problems that might cause their political embarrassment. It is also a way for insiders such a Vice President Dick Cheney and his Halliburton friends to reap obscene profits from no-bid contracts.

The high-level criminal deception involves not only war, but also other vital issues that impact on the health of the domestic economy. The same people who brought us unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (please see High Priests of War and my site map and audio section pages for links that examine the likely Mossad-CIA instigators) also look the other way as massive illegal Third World immigration and the export of professional jobs and strategic industries abroad continues to shrivel and impoverish white middle class America. Please also look at the Aug 1, 2007 article "The Return of the Robber Barons" by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. .

Most government pork-barrel spending programs are grossly inefficient and off the mark. They do not address specific business plans to develop specific products that are competitive in a free market. They lack a genuine "value proposition" characterized by increasing quality and steadily decreasing prices. This same lack of specificity is also true of central bank policies that play with monetary aggregates and interest rates.

Ideally, from the anarcho-libertarian perspective that seeks to maximize the material aspects of business return on investment, an economy is much better off when it is highly decentralized and most of the economic decisions are in the hands of entrepreneurs who have private ownership incentives and are close to their businesses, as opposed to a situation where major portions of the overall wealth of a society are getting tossed about willy nilly by government and central bank operators for partisan political reasons.

In fact, our politicians and central bankers have done such a horrible job of mismanaging America's economy that the Chinese, Japanese, and other foreigners are now climbing in the driver's seat. Please also ee the 8 Aug 2007 article "Uncle Sam, Your Banker Will See You Now," by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.

Let me add here that while I agree with most of the libertarian writings of Dr. Roberts, in the real world things are a bit more complicated than the pure anarcho-libertarian model. Racial nationalists believe that a healthy society needs to erect certain barriers to prevent aliens from gobbling up control of strategic industries, either from covert infiltration of ones domestic strategic bases (see The New Jerusalem and Final Judgment by Michael Collins Piper) or by export of ones strategic industries overseas.

I try to synthesize and reconcile the views of both the anarcho-libertarians and the racial nationalists, because I believe that both sides have valid points. I generally agree with the anarcho-libertarians in their analysis of the economic consequences of policies that distort free markets, however, I also agree with racial nationalists that certain policy distortions and trade and immigration barriers are a necessity in order to maintain a reasonably healthy and balanced society over the long run that is relatively free of massive criminal corruption or alien infiltration and takeover. I agree with the racial nationalists that in the long run, it is more the men who make the system than the system that makes the men. There is no substitute for having people in charge of the strategic bases of your society who share your gut, your values, your race, and your ethnicity. They are more likely than anyone else to be protective of your interests. Furthermore, whenever a dominate racial or ethnic group loses control of its own destiny, and in particular when it falls below 75% of the total population of a country, the level of social instability begins to skyrocket. Tom Chittum explains this in Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America, and I second him in my Publisher's Preface to the 2007 ebook edition of this classic work.

Another common economic fallacy that we need to address is called the Marxist labor theory of value. It is based off an emotion that all of us tend to feel, namely that if we put a lot of time and effort into a project, that we automatically deserve to be rewarded for all this effort in some way. Therefore, workers give "value" to their products through the time and labor they put into it.

This kind of thinking is often found among certain labor unions accustomed to negotiating pay raises and benefits geared exclusively towards their hours of labor. It is also frequently found among professional people used to billing for their hours of service. It is easy to see how people in highly specialized punch-clock blue collar jobs or in high-end service jobs that are disconnected from the full cycle involved in the development and marketing of actual physical products would find this fallacy attractive.

In reality the time and effort we put into developing or marketing a product may have very little to do with the way the value of the product is perceived by the public. For example, I might put quite a lot of time, expense, and effort into assembling a refrigerator and transporting it to Greenland, but I will hardly be rewarded for my efforts if I try to sell it to eskimos living in igloos without electricity.

The "value" that consumers perceive in particular products is usually always subjective based upon their particular circumstances at a particular point in time. The different elements that effect ones decision regarding whether or not to purchase a particular items depends on myriad variables that can fluctuate dramatically from day to day. "Value" is a subjective quality that often fluctuates continuously among potential consumers.

Therefore, the time and energy one puts into an entrepreneurial project is no any guarantee of any reward whatsoever in a free market. The labor and material that goes into production is simply part of what one risks as part of the process of entrepreneurial calculation that involves forecasting potential market demand and seeking a competitive rate of return.

We also see quite a lot of economic fallacy at the highest levels involving central bank and government spending policies. A good introduction to all of this can be found in What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Dr. Murray Rothbard (1926-1995). In particular, read section 4: "The Monetary Breakdown of the West." The collected works of Dr. Murray Rothbard, like those of Henry Hazlitt, comprise a source of essential reading for individuals who wish to get their arms around real economics.

What most universities to this very day fail to teach in their macroeconomics courses is the way in which Fed manipulation of interest rates completely screws up free market feedback mechanisms. By keeping short term interest rates artificially low, entrepreneurs are misled into having unrealistic long term time preferences in their business planning. They are also misled to assume risks that are insane given the horrible underlying risks in America's real economy. Furthermore, artificially low rates encourages people to move their money out of relatively low yielding bonds and into stocks that are generally vastly overvalued within the overall stock market due to the artificially low interest rates in the first place. When we get the inevitable market crash, we will see another casino-like transfer of trillions of dollars of savings similar to what followed the collapse of the 2000 stock market bubble or what is currently taking place with the slow collapse of the housing market bubble. An advanced industrial economy requires a certain level of honesty and stability. This level of manipulation behind our casino economy is more characteristic of a corrupt Third World country, where so much wealth gets expropriated by greedy, dishonest, and unstable leaders that it becomes almost impossible to establish a stable, thriving entrepreneurial class.

The Fed has artificially kept short term interest rates in the low to medium single digit range, whereas growth in the overall money supply growth averaged somewhere around approximately 10% from 1995 to 2005. More recently, real inflation has probably been at least somewhere in the mid-teens percentage wise, if not higher. Hard to tell, because since March 2006 the Fed stopped reporting M3. This is a very ominous sign. In the long run, rational interests should be set by a free market at a premium to the inflation rate. In the long run, inflation is very directly related to growth in the money supply.

Incidentally, in discussing historical inflation rates, we see the Fed playing manipulation games that disguise the underlying deteriorating health of the economy. This masking game prevents white Americans from taking adequate defensive measures until it is too late. In addition to no longer reporting M3, the Fed has also waged a coordinated campaign among central banks around the world to dis-hoard their gold in order to artificially suppress the gold barometer as a time-honored indicator of inflation. (See John Embry's: "Move Over Adam Smith: The Visible Hand of Uncle Sam"). As another dirty trick, the Fed has also coaxed foreign central banks into sopping up the excess dollars that it creates, therefore reducing their impact on circulating dollars that would tend to naturally drive up inflation. The Fed and its U.S. Government fellow travelers has also coaxed Saudi Arabia and other countries into trading their petroleum for dollars, hence artificially defending the value of the dollar in foreign currency exchanges. The Fed has also supported the explosive growth of unregulated derivatives, which multi-billionaire investor Warren Buffet has referred to as "Weapons of Mass Financial Destruction." Right now unregulated derivatives are somewhere over 15 or 20 times the size of the U.S. economy. (These derivatives originally got started in the foreign exchange markets after Nixon took America completely off gold in 1971 as a means to hedge currency exchange risks. They were completely unnecessary under the old international gold standard that existed and functioned very well prior to the creation of the Fed in 1913). Actually the list of dirty tricks is fairly long, and since this is not a technical finance paper, perhaps it is not worth going into great detail here. However, by now hopefully the reader gets the point that rather than serving the American public by promoting long term financial stability, the Fed has instead fostered a highly artificial and increasingly unstable and dangerous world that is the very enemy of an honest, entrepreneurial free market economy.

For more details, please visit some of my audio section listings such as:

High Fraud/High Greed Economy/Financial System:
Mises Institute Videos:
Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve
. According to the Von Mises Institute, this outstanding video is: “steeped in American history and Austrian economics, and featuring [Congressman] Ron Paul, Joseph Salerno, Dr. Hermann-Hans Hoppe, and Lew Rockwell, this extraordinary film is the clearest, most compelling explanation ever offered of the Fed, and why curbing it must be our first priority.” (42:08 minutes)." Another important online video that explains the fraudulent nature of the Federal Reserve from a power elitist perspective is America: From Freedom to Fascism by Aaron Russo (see listing below).
Also The MoneyMasters Part 1 (2 hrs).Google video summary: "This film is probably the best history movie you will ever see in your life. In total it is about 5 hours of footage but worth every ... all » second. You will probably learn more in 5 hours of watching this film than you will learn in any college history class. Fasten your seat belts."
See also The MoneyMasters Part 2 (1 hr 46 min)

When you read between the lines, you begin to see that the Fed is first and foremost a tool that supplies the financial rocket fuel necessary to support the neo-Jacobin welfare-warfare global superstate that is America today. ("Neo-Jacobin welfare-warfare global superstate" is some terminology that I have eclectically picked up from the libertarian writer Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, the historian Harry Elmer Barnes, and the liberal novelist and social critic Gore Vidal). As the Jewish former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan pointed out in his famous essay "Gold and Economic Freedom," such as big welfare-warfare state would never ever be possible under the financial constraints of the old gold standard. More significantly, the exclusively Jewish state of Israel could never survive and continue to extract trillions in wealth from the American public without the support of a huge American central bank, a big federal government partner in crime, and a large standing army that plays world policeman for Zionism.

Next, you need to grasp that America's Jewish supremacist ruling elite that controls the national media and most top investment banking jobs is temperamentally incapable of nurturing growth in basic industries with the same kinds of chivalrous, technologically-oriented, and self-restrained personality traits that once characterized former great captains of American industry such as Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie. Elite Jews overwhelmingly tend to be compulsive gamblers, intriguers, deceivers, and wheeler-dealers, pure and simple. For thousands of years Jews have been notorious everywhere they have gone for preferring financial speculation, brokering, and arbitration to nurturing truly productive enterprises from the ground up. Therefore, another important function for the Fed and its apologists is to mask as long as possible the symptoms of an economy that has turned into one big nonproductive casino that thrives on paper swapping to the exclusion of useful production.

I know that to many readers all of this sounds unbelievably crazy and criminal -- but hey -- it is happening! Part of my own explanation for this phenomenon is that it is largely biological in nature, reflecting a unique Darwinian evolutionary process that has impacted on the shaping of innate Jewish mental characteristics over the last several thousand years within beleaguered urban ghetto societies. Therefore, like the Id Monster in the science fiction movie The Forbidden Planet, it reflects subconscious and often repressed tendencies. It reflects an aspect of the Jewish character that I think many Jews do not want to admit exists even to themselves. My guess is that quite a few Jews are in as much a state of denial as many gentiles. This is probably also closely related to the sociopathic dimension of the Jewish character that I discuss in greater depth my analysis of Jewish criminal totalitarian psychopathology in my mutualism vs parasitism article.

Reading between the lines, Keynes at Harvard and The Great Deceit: Social Pseudo-Sciences are very chilling books. Jewish supremacist plutocrats and their corrupt gentile collaborators (like J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller) became so powerful that they were able to buy off whole armies of the "best and brightest" in America for over a hundred years to down-play, spin-doctor, and otherwise front for them in order to keep the general public thoroughly misled and confused. With the exception of certain individuals like Henry Ford, Father Charles Coughlin, Elisabeth Dilling, Hewey Long, Charles Lindbergh, Ezra Pound, and John F. Kennedy (see Final Judgment), those Americans who have been best equipped (intellectually and/or financially) to warn the public about the true nature of this problem and then take decisive action have failed miserably. We are stuck with the horrible truth that America today is actually quite a bit worse off in many areas than what so many so-called "right wing cranks" have been saying all along.

Return to question 16

Proceed to commentary for question 17





 

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.