I think the New World Order primarily connotes a global economic market led by Anglo-American bankers. I know some want to “mystify” it with connections of Cabbalism, Zionism, and Freemasonry. Certainly, the last three should be resisted, and certainly they factor into the New World Order, but I think the primary goal and end-game is a single global market. This market will relativise traditional communities, religions, and national identity. I suspect there is a religious dimension to the New World Order, but I don’t want to say too much on it because there is so much that cannot be known right now.
One has to be careful with “conspiritorial” views of history. It’s not that they are wrong-headed, but that given the nature of the case there is so much information that “just can’t be known.” Theologians who stand in traditionalist schools of thought (some Catholics, some Orthodox, maybe one or two Evangelicals) usually have a better angle on conspiracy history than the average “pop news” watcher. These theologians have some training in writing, have read and interacted with numerous footnoted and scholarly peer-reviewed books, and given the nature of their reading, and reading in general, they don’t have time to watch TV (which means they miss out or ignore what Fox News says).
Yes, the above title is a reference to the Lord of the Rings, particularly the movie version of the Fellowship…The Ring didn’t expect to be found by a Hobbit, or something. The title represents another problem with conspiracy views–the unexpected often happens, and when this does, it shatters paradigms.
While it’s a controversial thesis, it seriously cannot be gainsaid that the Anglo-American bankers, particularly the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, have orchestrated European politics for over 100 years. The Rothschilds–with their Jewish agents in Thessaloniki– were behind the Armenian genocide of 1915. Some scholarship has been done on the connection between London/New York bankers and the rise of the Bolshevieks. Unfortunately, when the Bolsheviks became too powerful, the Regime needed a counter-weight, and they found one in the person of Adolf Hitler.
Unfortunately…well, the rest is history. The West became entangled in one huge dialectic–it was social engineering at its finest. When the Nazis were able to place key individuals in the “freedom-loving West,” essentially turning America into a military-industrial complex, the only entity powerful enough to stop them was Soviet Russia. Not really a happy array of choices. This is social dialectic at its starkest.
The bankers themselves weren’t too bothered. They were able to heavily invest in Soviet infrastructure.
I suppose even the most ardent socialist saw the coming demise of the USSR. However, given that Marxism and capitalism share the same root presuppositions, and that these economic forces control the Western countries (if you doubt that, google which entity contributed both to McCain and Obama’s campaign. When you are done, get back to me…), the fall of socialism presented no real problem to these elites. In fact, given there was no strong leadership in Russia, it was now possible to siphon trillions of dollars of Russian capital back to the West via Harvard university, the Carnegie Institutes, and others. Given that Yeltsin was a dying alcoholic, and that the Russo-Jewish mafia controlled Russia, the game went on as before.
But something happened which the ring did not expect. One of Yeltsin’s last moves to was appoint Vladimir Putin as his successor. Putin was not Yeltsin. Putin had his training in the security services. Long story short, Putin marginalized the Jewish Mafia in Russia, rebuilt the military, and was able to capitalize on Russia’s nigh-infinite oil reserves. In short, he brought Russia from a Third World Country to a First World Country in fewer than ten years.
Unfortunately for the Regime, Putin is a nationalist. While his Orthodoxy is not always perfect, and he has compromised on some issues, Russia has began a slow revival under Putin (and the Moscow Patriarchate). Putin’s moves have blocked the Regime in countless ways. The most obvious is when Putin prevented an Israeli-trained Georgian army from ethnically cleansing Russian citizens in South Ossetia.
Few realize just how major this was. For the first time in ten years, NATO-inspired military interests were stopped cold. America was clearly not in a position to react. Secondly, after the debacle in Kosovo in 1999 the Russian army demonstrated it could respond to highly sophisticated threats. For Americans, this meant that the Regime would wait a little longer before sending American boys to die in Iran (some suggest that Putin’s moves in Ossetia delayed a Zionist war against Iran).
I know there are some in the extreme “white nationalist” camp who think that Putin is a Zionist stooge and Putin supporters like Daniel Estulin are simply Zionists front-men. Besides questioning their IQ, I don’t know really what to say. If Putin were really a Zionist front-man, why has he been consistently thwarting Zionist designs? Further, for those who still think Putin is a front-man for the New World Order, why did the Bilderbergers try to kill him?
I’ve mentioned before that American conservatives and evangelicals justify their distrust (or more often, outright hostility) to Putin and Russia claiming that Putin is a KGB agent (still) and the majority of Russian elites in the FSB are actually old KGB agents. (There is supposedly to be a book arguing this point which I plan to acquire in the future). I’ve rebutted this claim several times, but I will try to bring all the threads together.
While it’s not often stated, I think the main reason people bring up Putin’s KGB-connections is because of the nefarious connotations the phrase “KGB” has. We think of jack-booted Nazis (?!?) storming into grandma’s prayer meeting and throwing her into the GULAG. Certainly, that happened, but I will argue that it is hypocritical and immoral for American conservatives and capitalists (particularly when the two are synonymous) to use that line of argumentation. American capitalists consistently bankrolled the Soviet Union knowing about the camps.
However, that wasn’t the essence of the KGB in the later years. In Michael Stuermer’s biography of Putin, he makes clear that Putin (and others like him) joined the KGB not to hunt for grandma’s prayer meetings, but to protect Russia against external threats. Let’s pursue this line of thought for a second. Towards the end of the Cold War, it was becoming apparent that the ideological differences between Western Europe/America and USSR were not as sharp. The true opposition was between two economic empires competing for global supremacy. Therefore, I suggest it is in this context that Putin’s “KGB” moves be interpreted.
At this point we should acknowledge that Patriarch ALEXEY II (of blessed memory) was a KGB agent. Doesn’t this mean the Russian church is implicitly flawed? Perhaps, but there is something else going on. As the Gerrards’ biography of Alexey makes clear, Alexey was considered one of the brightest KGB agents out there. Again, doesn’t this seem to implicate Alexey? Well, it might, but something unexpected happened. Alexey decided to deconstruct the Soviet system from within and rebuilt the church. It seems odd that a mindless KGB agent decides to internally destroy the Soviets for the sake of the church. Therefore, (I will skip to my conclusion) any claim that Russia today is KGB (as is its church) and its FSB are simply biding their time for the “time to strike” is nonsensical.”
- Boris Yeltsin purged the KGB several times in the 1990s. Most of the hardliners were either arrested or pensioned off. The FSB is simply not the same as the KGB.
- How come no one brings up, to reverse the charge, that GHW Bush was head of the CIA? The CIA is just as nasty as the KGB, if not more so (Monarch, Mind-control, remote viewing, prostitution as a form of torture, etc).
- The brightest KGB agent actually worked to subvert the KGB.
- Times change: even if the men were truly old-school KGB agents, it really doesn’t change my primary argument today. Even the older, more evil KGB was committed to a Eurasian dominance. Now, it’s different enemies and different fronts (this last point probably deserves a post in itself).
In case any True Orthodox are reading this, I am not necessarily saying Alexey II was a good guy, nor am I white-washing KGB and Communist crimes. I am simply evaluating *some* sources on the matter and working them in a larger framework. Truth be told, I do not have the skill to fully navigate that area.
the best book on this is by a German guy (i didn’t forget his name but I forgot how to spell it) titled *Full Scale Dominance.* The thesis is this: in the 1800s Harold Mackinder (sp?), a British scholar, argued that for Britain (or America) to control the world they must control the Eurasian heartland. Unfortunately, Russia stood in the way of Britian running the world.
American thinkers like Zbignew Brzereznki, Obama’s chief adviser and a leaader in the Council on Foreign Relations, have picked up MacKinder’s thesis and formulated in in an American context. While America cannot simply annex Georgia or Kygyzstan, it can do the next best thing: establish puppet governments.
The reason is this: he who controls the oil wins the game. That is why America spent all this money on Sakaashvili. They needed a cooperative Georgia for the oil pipelines from the Caspian. They also needed a cooperative Ukraine to destabilize Russia, which they gained in 2004 in the “Orange Revolution.” What most Americans don’t realize is that the 2010 Ukraine elections went back to pro-Russian candidates. This set back the New World Order’s plans 10 years.
Still, on neocon/neolib terms, Russia and China must be neutralized. American leaders have differing thoughts on it. Jew Paul Wolfowitz (Bush’s chief adviser) said to simply nuke about 20 Russian and Chinese cities. Other American leaders are not so sure that’s a good idea. Most are pushing for a prolongation of the War on Terror. If you look at where American bases are in teh War on Terror, they are surrounding Russia. That’s why America is so intent on missile shields in these bases: they can easily be converted to launching pads against Russia.
Here are some other good links:
http://www.danielestulin.com/en/ (scroll down to Khodorovsky part two for a fine summary).
I have nothing new to add to the phenomenon, save that it makes the news more interesting now, having usurped Lindsey Lohan’s battle with rehab as the top of the MSM’s priorities. Still, a few words.
For the longest time I (and others) have been accusing the DC government as run by oligarchies, in cahoots with international banking cartels, openly subverts traditional societies, and in general guilty of all-around miscreant behavior. And no doubt to some, I sounded like a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.
With others, I doubt wikileaks will change anything important in terms of foreign policy. Even the US’s European allies don’t really like us, thinking we think we have the right to play God all over the world. Wikileaks won’t be a surprise to Putin or Berlusconi.
However, it does confirm everything I have ever said about the New World Order and the Oligarchs. When I said the US and Israel were arming and financing Georgia to kill Ossetians for the sake of oil, I am now proven right.
I (and others) have said the US instigated internal revolutions in traditionally Orthodox Slavic countries for the sake of weakening Russia–I am correct.
Interestingly, it notes a close connection between Putin and Berlusconi.
I really don’t have anything to add that Anatoly hasn’t already admirably summarized.
Wikileaks is a mirror to the Western political soul.
EDIT: The Regime becomes more explicit about the Putin-Berlusconi political alliance. Every time a major leader threatens the Regime in any way, he risks major political dangers. I quoted from the German newspapers Spiegel, but I don’t think the link is permanent, so I will quote major excerpts below.
This Russian-Italian axis does not suit the Americans at all. Because Berlusconi has negotiated generous conditions for the Italian oil and energy giant Eni with the Russian firm Gazprom, and because he generally supports Russian energy projects rather than those of Western countries, the Americans see their energy interests endangered.
US diplomats believe Berlusconi is immune to political influence. He generally makes decisions relating to Russia by himself, and Italian diplomats are seldom allowed to get involved…
But Washington appears interested in at least investigating the rumors. In January, the US State Department asked the US embassies in Rome and Moscow to assemble “any information on the personal relationship” between Putin and Berlusconi as well as information about “personal investments” that could influence their political policies. It was signed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
This will come as a surprise to any that know me. For a long time I defended theonomy and postmillennialism. Regarding theonomy, I don’t accept Bahnsen’s hermeneutics but I do advocate a form of social theory drawing heavily from the Old Testament reinterpreted by the Fathers in a community (e.g., taking the communal structure of Alasdair MacIntyre). An example of it can be seen here: National Anarchism, the Old Faith, and Rebellion.
Here’s the problem with eschatology (and for the record I am not considering the otherwise interesting views of mainstream theologians). And for the sake of simplicity I am only dealing with the mainstream Evangelical/Reformed views. Those are the easiest to describe and represent most of conservative Christendom.
A-, pre- and postmillennialism have equal explanatory power. They are tight systems and seem to explain away contrary evidence quite well. The problem I noticed with all three positions is they all engage in special-pleading. E.g., “These verses prove our position but the seemingly contrary verses don’t disprove our position because if you look at it this way, it can be seen to support or not-contradict our position.” While used by theologians and biblical scholars, this is actually a terrible form of argument. I point this out because I am going to posit some eschatological points that seem to disregard all three positions. While I won’t use many biblical texts (I could do that in a later post, I suppose), I hope it is in the spirit of the biblical evidence. So here goes:
With St Cyril of Jerusalem I say: “For I say that martyrs of the End Times will excel all martyrs. For the martyrs hitherto have wrestled with men only, but during that time, they should do battle with Satan in his own person.” (Catechetical Lecture 15).
Premillennialism got in trouble by (rightly) pointing out the rise of a future Anti-Christ. They erred in seeing that this anti-Christ will rule the world in the same way that a central computer rules a network. It does not allow for large-scale political resistance to the anti-christ (aside from not receiving the mark, per se). Sergei Bulgakov has good thoughts on this in his introduction to The Lamb of God. The current rebellion to Christ is merely the death-throes of the evil world order. Therefore, one can posit both resistance to the anti-Christ (and war upon him) while positing nations coming to Christ.
While every time sees their time as “the last days” because of “all the evil in the world,” it is not far-fetched to say that our generation has a few differences. Communication has gone global. Capital and wealth are highly liquid and it has never been easier to control such capital and wealth. While tyrants have always wanted to control their people, because of (1) liquid capital and (2) technology, tyrants can now control people on a global scale. It’s as simple as that.
So what is Russia’s role in all of this? I have gotten in trouble with Calvinists and Neo-Cons for being pro-Russian. Allow me to explain a few points. I do not endorse everything Putin has done. I do not see him as the resurrected King Arthur who will do battle with the Beast from the Sea (though not ruling out that possibility). Even good conspiracy theory sites (Henry Makow, for one) see Russia as the secret heart of oligarchy and New World Order Illuminatism. That could be possible, I suppose, but Putin’s actions, and the actions of the global elites against Putin, make that a tenuous claim. If Putin were truly an Illuminatist, why would he have crushed the Israeli and American-armed Georgian army in their genocide against Ossetia? Why does he oppose NATO’s desire for world domination? If Putin were secretly hoping for One-World Government, why does he advocate a multi-polar world?
In many ways I see strengths in all three positions (sorry, not trying to sound like John Frame!). The postmillennialist is correct in seeing whole nations coming to Christ in this aeon (Russia, Serbia, Ukraine, Belarus). The amillennialist is correct in seeing this aeon as the millennium (I loosely follow the reasoning of St Augustine on this). The premillennialist is correct to see the rise of Anti-Christ in this aeon.
Of course, that leaves the identity of AntiChrist…
I have gone on record as a strong defender of Vladimir Putin. Seen as an alternative to both Yeltsin-Clinton Capitalism on one hand and Sovietism on the other, Putin’s record is impressive. It’s hard to put into words just how important Putin was to Russia and even to international order in general. Putin delegitimized the oligarchs inside Russia while sounding a warning to unipolar imperialism on the outside.
He is not perfect. I am not entirely pleased with a number of his recent decisions. I do wonder if he and Medvedev are leaving Iran out to dry, so to speak. He’s a politician, though, and often has to act like one.
It is very tempting to come close to “man-worship” regarding Vladimir Putin. This is especially the case when you compare Putin to other world leaders: Bush, Obama, Tony Blair, Sarkozy. Indeed, postmodernity defines itself as the rejection of the hero. Therefore, the best way to reject postmodernity is to find heroes!
But human heroes should never be ultimate. They point beyond themselves to the transcendent–to God. In Putin’s case they point somewhere else, too. They point beyond the next ruler of Russia. A lot of media outlets are curious over the next Russian leader–Putin, Medvedev, or some other guy. On one hand it doesn’t matter. Given United Russia’s hegemony the next leader of Russia will fall in the mold of the previous two.
Some people, though, are looking beyond the Parliamentary system to the Tsarist system. In some ways, I am one of those persons. I do believe, along with a section of the Russian Orthodox Church, that there will be a Tsar in Russia who will focus the believing world around himself as a resistance to antichrist. To be honest, though, I do not believe Putin is this Tsarist figure. I also believe that monarchists should play this scene very carefully. Much of the world is militantly opposed to both Orthodoxy and Russia and is doing everything they can to destroy both. Putin has done a fine job in staying their hands. Could a Tsar do better? Possibly. Should a Tsar lead today’s Russia? I can think of worse alternatives. Is that time now? That is the question of the hour. Let’s hope wise heads prevail.
This book by William Engdahl succinctly explains the neo-conservative, neo-liberal paranoia. The thesis is simple and derives from Zbignew Brerezinski’s The Grand Chessboard. Zbignew had taken this idea from British strategist Halford Mackinder. Mackinder argued (quite rightly, if with somewhat devilish conclusions) that whoever controlled the Eurasian landmass would control the world’s pivot-point. Zbigniew updated the thesis: America should seek such dominance in Eurasia as to make Russia her vassal. The unspoken conclusion (actually, Paul Wolfowitz was quite outspoken on this point): if Russia does not wish to be a vassal, use a nuclear first-strike against her.
With those cheerful thoughts in mind, Engdahl offers us a very helpful hermeneutical grid per US geopolitics: anytime America acts in Europe or Asia, she is doing so in order to 1) control key oil transits; 2) weaken China; and 3) weaken Russia. In order to do this the Anglo-Americans must employ a number of strategies against ornery states like Russia, China, Serbia, Myanmar, and Iran.
The most successful of American strategies has been the “Color Revolutions.” Drawing off of the psychology of both terrorism and rock concerts, CIA operatives were able to finance and delegitimize social nationalist regimes. This worked in Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia.
Understandably, this will not work with larger states. In that case, just accuse them of human rights violations. This is the primary goal with China. W.E. does a good job explaining the geopolitical importance of Tibet (the Tibetan plateau is the source of the seven major rivers the give water to most of Asia), Myanmar (50% of Chinese oil imports pass through the Straits of Malacca). Obviously, if America can sever Tibet from China and/or control Myanmar, it can deliver a crushing choke-hold on China from which it will likely not recover. With the removal of China, American control over Eurasia is guaranteed.
W.E. then gives a disturbing analysis of American nuclear capabilities. The technological specifics aside, keeping in line with the Zbigniew-Halford thesis, the goal of American nuclear capabilities is to maintain American dominance in the world. We need to be very clear about the Wolfowitz doctrine: America should pre-emptively destroy any country that could pose a threat to American political interests. This is the equivalent of killing some random guy on the street just so he can’t kill you some day. I’m not making this up. This is the morality and logic of the people in charge.
There are some limitations to this book, though the overall thrust is accurate. W.E. is only focusing on the American infrastructure. He doesn’t do the same kind of work as Joseph Farrell or Jim Marrs.
Things look bad, and W.E. doesn’t pull any punches. But not all is lost. The following is my own reflections and not necessarily those of W.E.
- If the Motivilov Prophecies are true, Russia will survive an American nuclear holocaust.
- Even the strongest armies can do little with a collapsed economy and infrastructure. Contrary to popular opinion, the Red Army at the end of Afghanistan was super-elite, yet the USSR was broken.
Commentators speculate that by the year 2050 Europe will be largely Muslim. This is seen in Europe’s declining birth rate over against hordes of Middle Eastern immigrants and their high birth rates. Part of this failure is Europe’s vote of “no-confidence” in itself Many like to call the West a “post-Christian society.” In many ways, though, I think it is post-nihilist society.
And, so it’s argued, Europe will continue to die off while Muslims come in.
That appears demographically to be the case, but here is why I reject the Eurabia thesis:
- It only works under the assumption that things in 2050 will be identical to the way they are in 2010. But what many conservatives forget is that “things can happen” in a short period of time. In the years between 1918 and 1945 (fewer than 30 years) Europe undid 16 centuries of its heritage. Just because things are bad (or good) today doesn’t mean it will always be that way.
- Following above, the reasons why Europe is plagued with immigrants is partly due to its post-colonial heritage (a great evil, I admit). Another part is the humanist mentality of its leaders. The leaders of Europe (and America) honestly believed that all cultures are equal and even though Muslims believe things like Surah 9:5, if we show them the glories of liberal democracy, we can turn all of the jihadists into new Perez Hiltons. “Let’s respect the poor Mussies’ religion. All religions–except ancient Christianity–equal.” Will they keep saying that as Muslims carry out honor killings and begin executing homosexuals?
- And a few European countries are waking up. While little will probably come out of the Swiss minaret ban, it does show that sections of Europe are waking up. Also consider that Italy is deporting North Africans and Sweden’s far right, anti-immigration party has gained a foothold.
- War in Iran: if the West/Israel carries out a potentially-nuclear war with Iran, whatever else may come of it, it will definitely change Euro-Muslims relations.
- Recognizing the Armenian genocide: As more countries begin to recognize the genocide the Turks carried out on Armenian Christians in the 1910s, relations with Turkey will sour. Turkey might decide that Europhilic politics isn’t worth it and go elsewhere. They might decide to force small confrontations in Kurdish Iraq or they could block shipping/troop transport in central Asia. Keep in mind that as Turkey turns back to Islam, it is still a NATO member. This tension will worsen as as the US continues to screw Muslim lands and will utterly crack if NATO declares war on Iran.
- The case of Serbia and Kosovo: Don’t really know what will happen here. The Regime (Brussels/London/DC) utterly controls the Serb government. It was NATO’s first example of “nation-building.” However, on the other hand, even liberals in Europe–while they may hate the Serbs–they are beginning to hate the Muslim Kosovars even more. Likewise, Putin’s Russia is not the same country as Yeltsin’s. Russia has played its diplomacy card with great skill. Russia and Serbia are showing the world that Kosovo is not a functional state. When the Kosovars ethnically cleanse the last few Serbs–the people who keep the hospitals and such running–the state will become a complete narco-gangster state. The only reason it will function is due to drug and prostitution money, along with donations by high-ranked Republicans in the United States.
- And Europe knows it. NATO is bogged down in Afghanistan. If the Serbs wanted to retake Kosovo, they probably could with Russian help. Russian special forces could air drop into Serbia. While they would need to fly over Romania and Hungary, the Russians might not ask for permission either. And Romania wouldn’t want to force a confrontation with Moscow, either. It needs to be noted, though, that the current Serb government won’t do anything to retake their homeland. They are puppets of Washington D. C. and Serbs must wait for new leadership.
- Following Samuel Huntingdon’s thesis (cf Clash of Civilizations), states are leaving the “liberal democracy” behind and are moving more towards community and tradition. When George Soros and the CIA staged “color revolutions” across the former Soviet Bloc in the 1990s, many thought that liberal demcracy would finally triumph. Those revolutions are eventually over. Saakashivili has failed in Georgia. The Orange Revolution is dead in Ukraine.
- Birth rates can change. As Sublime Oblivion has demonstrated, Russia’s birthrate has gone up–and it went up in during some of the worst economic crisises.
Eurabia is a serious threat. I don’t make light of it. But it can be stopped. And it can be stopped rather easily. Islam isn’t that intellectually powerful. It’s a cultural parasite. After the 1500s Europe demonstrate that it can easily defeat Islam on the intellectual and military levels. And that’s no different today. The real bad is not Islam, but the neo-lib/neo-con politicians in power. Europe enacted a counter-1600 year change in the space of 28 years. It’s quite possible to revert the slide.
Given Obamanomics today, it is misleading at best for conservative folk to criticize Big Business and “capitalism,” if for no other reason one will be called “socialist” and deemed complicit in the drunken government spending.
(Oh, and by “social nationalist” I do not mean the same thing as “national socialist” per 1930s Germany.)
I don’t plan to criticize Obama here, simply because there is no need to. One does not criticize a train wreck for “bad driving.” You just watch. But I don’t think “capitalism” is the answer. First of all, the capitalism of today is actually corporationism–an entity both John McCain and Obama will defend at all costs. It’s a far cry for Adam Smith, who was not without his problems as well.
In a sense I defend the free market, if by that you mean that small farmers and small business owners may do with their resources what they wish. I reject an “absolute free market” because I don’t think that Goldman-Sachs, Archer Daniels Midland should be allowed to pull their stunts in a way that threatens the small farmer and the local village.
Recently I read an interesting article summarizing Lenin’s critique of elitist corporational capitalism. Before I say the following I make it clear I am not defending Lenin. I believe he was fully possessed by Satan (as were some of the Wall Street bankers and capitalists who financed him–that is not a contradiction in terms; another post will show why Wall Street wanted a communist takeover in Russia).
On another note, I don’t know why Lenin really took the time to critique corporational capitalism. If, as Marx said, communism is the necessary conclusion to capitalism, and one must go through the corporational phase first, why did Lenin care?
Lenin, echoing Karl Marx, also predicted that capitalism would eventually become imperialistic in nature, with a limited number of corporations controlling a huge portion of the global resources.
According to Lenin, whose theories are starting to get a second look from some Western economists, there are five defining characteristics of capitalist imperialism:
1) The concentration of production and capital developed to such a level that it creates monopolies that play a decisive role in economic life.
2) The merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of “finance capital,” of a domineering financial oligarchy.
3) The export of capital, as distinguished from the export of commodities.
4) The formation of international capitalist monopolies that share the global markets among themselves.
5) The territorial division of the entire globe among the greatest capitalist powers is completed.
Yeah, that’s not the free market “the way it used to be in good ole-America.” It’s really pointless now to argue on how to get back to the old capitalist way of Industrial Revolution England. It’s not going to happen (and who would want it?). Secondly, assuming we get back to the “capitalist ideal,” how do the capitalists answer the criticism that it is just a matter of time before the “dialectic to Marxism” repeats itself again? (This is also the reason I oppose Tea-Parties and “let’s get back to the Constitution.”).
The following is not new to me. I’m just repeating what a lot of other theologians and philosophers have said. A few decades ago Alasdair MacIntyre argued that “communal ethics” and politics is the wave of the future. MacIntyre is right–I am applying his insights to economics (that idea is original with me). I am taking a lot of my ideas from Fr Matt Johnson. The following is from him. He is describing how Putin was able to bring Russia from a 5th world country after the Clinton-Yeltsin years to a first world country with a stronger economy than Canada, all in ten years.
The way he did this defied all “sound economic principles” (e.g., see http://www.mises.org). He was told that nationalizing the banks and much of the economy will necessarily ruin the country (there is a good way and a bad way to nationalize banks; Obama is doing the bad way). He kicked out the IMF and the World bank, rejecting their “help” (which would have been practically the same thing as going to a Mafia don for help) and as a result, his country prospered and he has a popularity rating of 85%.
In the following, substitute “American” or “Celtic” workers for “Russian” workers and you get the same idea.
A Social Nationalist Response
1. Profits need to be shared with Russian workers. Direct foreign investment must come with guarantees for worker safety and a rate of pay that is proportional to the profitability of the enterprise.
2. Russian workers will need a say in management. Worker’s councils should be convened as a matter of government policy to consult with management concerning pay, safety and any grievances that might arise.
3. Foreign investors will continually be under the surveillance of the state in terms of the treatment of the natural environment.
4. All foreign investors will be required to support local institutions, including Orthodox churches, theater companies, health clinics, libraries, local artists and social insurance.
5. Under no circumstances should foreign money be channeled into political parties, candidates or causes.
6. All food purchased by the investing firm must come from local agriculture if possible.
7. The labor force in any given enterprise, at all levels, must be at least 80% Russian.
8. Foreign enterprises will have at least some responsibility to work with local government to improve local infrastructure.