Thanks John! After all parts are released I will either pin the Table of Contents or a Foreword/Concluding Remarks wraparound. I prefer to highlight each new release in the meantime.
Thank you for this well documented essay / compilation.
It took me time to go through all the individual articles. I wish myself more available time to dig into the reference material you provide. I do not, unconditionally, agree with your line of thought. I do however, agree with you that « we have a severe problem with our « banking systemS ». Part of my « reluctance » to buy your elaborate thesis leverages on the fact that you avoid (perhaps I missed it) to address « our own responsibility ».
To make a long story short, one simple example: we « ALL KNOW » there is « war against cash » going on using fallacious arguments ranging from « a 1$ bill can carry a disease » to « maintaining cash costs a fortune » and so on.
However
- we KNOW that a cash free society will be prone to state control (IRS and some social-democrats (in the European meaning of the word) will like it !)
- we also KNOW that by not using cash anymore we exchange some degree of freedom against some convenience.
- yet, we all play the game, myself often included every time I’m not using cash.
If we would DISLIKE the idea of being controlled (being a victim) on our expenses, we could just be using cash all the time. Remember, we all KNOW.
I wonder if there exists a cognitive bias our brain is specifically wired for that pushes us to accept, conveniently, narratives that help to evacuate our own responsibility. Conspiration theories get audience; « they are all responsible, I’m a victim » regardless of the topic. I’m not suggesting your thesis goes along such lines, I’m however wondering why your documented portrait gets away with what seems to be « one of our intrinsic « weakness.
Hi Philippe, thank you for your comment. You touch on the fact that people will generally choose comfort and security over freedom, perhaps every time. We all bear some amount of responsibility for the system being erected; human nature is fallen. And the monetary system is both complex and very confusing to the general population. How many people could explain how fractional reserving banking works -- perhaps one out of a hundred, if that?
most people, particularly in america, are illiterate. educated and uneducated alike. do not read. cannot read. our memory now obliterated by synthetic pop culture, brain meltingly bad music, poisoned food and texting. texting degrades short term memory. we're in a pickle.
Thanks for your magnum opus compilation. I'm translating your articles to South America countries, portugue and Spanish readers. Amazing work. I would kindly appreciate if you could send me all this in pdf. Thanks so much for this amazing work. Be well. I'm from Brazil.
a while ago I already commented your long essay / compilation discussing the central bank issues. Many readers will follow your line of thought and perhaps stumble across the following “obstacle”, like me. After reading again the long “central bank essay” as well as other articles of yours, I get the impression that you actually believe that there is a “plan”; “some people out there” wish (and seem to succeed) to “rule the world”.
I agree that the image of a Jewish conspiracy or its variation lead by wealthy bankers families pulling the strings behind the scene is appealing to many.
I dare to suggest a modest “however” sketched in the following manner:
Centuries ago, power was concentrated differently as today. A “king” was ruling some territory and often relied on private bankers to finance wars against other “kingdoms”. At that time, peasants worked long hours in the field, had a beer in the evening, and were not disturbed as we are by too much false and less false information. In short, any kind of conspiracy was most likely easier to hide from the public. Moreover, a leak of information would take time to spread since communication tools were much slower and the number of people involved in the “conspiracy” was also limited.
Today, with fast and cheap communication tools, everyone is a specialist in something and everyone writes about anything. Sorting out “truth” from “truth but out of context” from “not exactly true” from “false” requires personal Will, Time and Energy. Thus, you might argue that this situation favors those ready to hide something from the public, since the public is notoriously lazy and not always as curious and/or educated as one might think/wish. Now comes my modest “however”: statistics.
Modern societies are more “complex” today. Basic needs remain unchanged, but the way these “needs” + all the superfluous are satisfied today involves a great number of participants.
Therefore, I argue that keeping something confidential is more and more difficult.
I wonder if a project of the size and complexity of the Manhattan Project would be feasible today, without any major leak.
The average level of education of our “elite” is most likely lower than it was fifty or so years ago and the same is true for all those working as “idiot utile” hand in hand with this “elite”. Now by increasing the number of “participant” in any conspiracy as well as lowering the technical barriers to the spread of information - combined with the lower level of education - you INCREASE the statistical rate at which a leak might occur.
One modern example of “leak” is the reaction of Mr Snowden who realized that something was wrong within the activities of the NSA and decided to speak out.
There are many “potential Mr or Mrs Snowden” out there, don’t you think ?
Which mechanism do I miss, capable to hinder “Snowden effects” ?
Hi Philippe, thank you for the comment. I tried to address some of the arguments in favor of the “natural decline” theory within the long essay in this part:
The strongest argument against the natural decline theory, I think, is that operations like COVID, where the world acted in lockstep unison with respect to censorship, shutdowns, monetary printing, almost immediate “vaccine” rollout, and being forced to take it under job loss or worse, are possible without centralized, high level coordination betraying the existence of a deliberate force behind the curtain. There would have been variations in approaches worldwide, denial of the so-called “science”, etc - we saw a little of it in Sweden, just a tiny bit, and some rejection in Africa but that’s about it, everyone else responded in almost exactly the same way.
Going back in history, the establishment of the Federal Reserve system is a proven conspiracy - see G. Edward Griffith’s The Creature from Jekyll Island if you want the grisly details. Control is effectuated via ownership of and direction of the money supply - almost no one downstream from that level needs to be involved in an ongoing conspiracy, each group and interest naturally fills a certain niche and can be directed from above based on the amount of funding they receive.
Furthermore, I just don’t see the “natural decline” theory as predictive, and recursive prediction forms the backbone of ongoing political/spiritual insights: the trends toward ever increasing centralization and control are too often repeated. As James Forrestal, Harry Truman's Secretary of Defense, is quoted as saying, "If there wasn't a conspiracy, once in a while they'd make a mistake in our favor.”
I'm late in finding your Substack(s), and late in acknowledging your incomparable writing. I am slowly making my way through your oeuvre, but it already appears that you have masterfully elaborated into sound frameworks of elaborate reasoning many themes that have only arisen in my own recognition as hunches or as inchoate notions, if at all.
Accordingly, I regret not being able to pay for the privilege of reading your writing. Over four years ago, I walked away from work, tax liabilities, insurance premiums, anything that imposes a cost of ownership, status and the aspiration of improving it, and I also ceased earning an income when I resolved to never again supply and support the prevailing regime by my labor, sacrifice, ingenuity, or charity.
Hi aux, thank you for the nice comment. No problem about not offering a donative, and I appreciate your words on the matter; I have paid subscriptions turned off because my intent here is not to monetize this content, but to offer it's messages to anyone who wants to read it with hope that it makes a positive impact. I hope you find benefit from it in some manner.
Oh, and I forgot to say: your profile picture of those two unsavory fiends is a cunning choice. Since I first saw the picture, by following a link in a comment on ZeroHedge, I've wondered whether it shows the caught unawares Sir Evelyn chastising Charles for the latter's dilettantish blunder of allowing his close associations with Jimmy Savile out into the public. The Royal publicists must have been driven to conniptions initially about how to deal with the fallout, but they eventually handled it the way the establishment usually handles the most embarrassing disasters: official denial of the occurrence, stonewall refusal to acknowledge, media blackout, etc.
Thank you Neoliberal Feudalism, I greatly appreciate it. Abuse of genuine benevolence ordinarily reflects the basest immorality, and even the suspicion of that disgrace would mortify me. If nothing else, I hope you will be pleased to know that your sophisticated thinking and narrations, carefully and skillfully elaborated in your Substack posts, are tremendously illuminating. In truth, I'm benignly envious of your intellect and narrative proficiency. Even though it is right that lesser things should be sold and bought, while the exchange of things of great value is rewarding as much in provision as in receipt, I still wish things could be otherwise because I would be greatly honored were I able to be accounted among your donors and contributors.
Yesterday, the last day of 2023, we gathered together with Friends. We often discuss our readings and share thoughts. I took the liberty to « advertise » your essay / compilation and it was the topic of last night. The general comment is « interesting » since you browse a portrait of the historical development of central banks. The thesis hinges, among other things, on the difference between Christianity and the Roman system. It is appealing to the reader ready to go through the entire paper without cross checking the origin and content of the references you provide, because it provides some sort of explanation for the « mess » we are in. It is even hilarious when you describe different character types; we had quite some fun trying to cast ourselves into the scheme you provide. Many of us spent additional time to verify a few claims / facts, or replaced true claims in their original context. There is no point here to trigger a controversy. Every reader should do his own critical thinking homework and be allowed to conclude. I wish you a nice start into 2024, Philippe Lerch
Hi. I would appreciate pdf copy if possible. I prefer reading through e-books as they are more kind to my eyes and the content is something I would like to have a copy of, worth saving that is. Thank you.
An excellent overview! Education is the key. Note that you could "pin" this index post so it stays at the top of your page.
Thanks John! After all parts are released I will either pin the Table of Contents or a Foreword/Concluding Remarks wraparound. I prefer to highlight each new release in the meantime.
Thank you for this well documented essay / compilation.
It took me time to go through all the individual articles. I wish myself more available time to dig into the reference material you provide. I do not, unconditionally, agree with your line of thought. I do however, agree with you that « we have a severe problem with our « banking systemS ». Part of my « reluctance » to buy your elaborate thesis leverages on the fact that you avoid (perhaps I missed it) to address « our own responsibility ».
To make a long story short, one simple example: we « ALL KNOW » there is « war against cash » going on using fallacious arguments ranging from « a 1$ bill can carry a disease » to « maintaining cash costs a fortune » and so on.
However
- we KNOW that a cash free society will be prone to state control (IRS and some social-democrats (in the European meaning of the word) will like it !)
- we also KNOW that by not using cash anymore we exchange some degree of freedom against some convenience.
- yet, we all play the game, myself often included every time I’m not using cash.
If we would DISLIKE the idea of being controlled (being a victim) on our expenses, we could just be using cash all the time. Remember, we all KNOW.
I wonder if there exists a cognitive bias our brain is specifically wired for that pushes us to accept, conveniently, narratives that help to evacuate our own responsibility. Conspiration theories get audience; « they are all responsible, I’m a victim » regardless of the topic. I’m not suggesting your thesis goes along such lines, I’m however wondering why your documented portrait gets away with what seems to be « one of our intrinsic « weakness.
kind regard, Philippe Lerch
Hi Philippe, thank you for your comment. You touch on the fact that people will generally choose comfort and security over freedom, perhaps every time. We all bear some amount of responsibility for the system being erected; human nature is fallen. And the monetary system is both complex and very confusing to the general population. How many people could explain how fractional reserving banking works -- perhaps one out of a hundred, if that?
This system being summoned is rooted in our core values (i.e. egalitarianism) as a ratchet effect, values which have not been examined by the vast majority of people - they accept them blindly: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-egalitarian-ratchet-effect-why
And over-imposed on it is this central bank parasitic system draining the life-force out of society. You may enjoy "The Creature from Jekyll Island" if you want to delve deeper into this topic: https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X
most people, particularly in america, are illiterate. educated and uneducated alike. do not read. cannot read. our memory now obliterated by synthetic pop culture, brain meltingly bad music, poisoned food and texting. texting degrades short term memory. we're in a pickle.
Hey NF, meant to write to you a few weeks ago. Loved this book, brilliant writing. Thanks for putting it together.
Thanks for your magnum opus compilation. I'm translating your articles to South America countries, portugue and Spanish readers. Amazing work. I would kindly appreciate if you could send me all this in pdf. Thanks so much for this amazing work. Be well. I'm from Brazil.
Howdy,
a while ago I already commented your long essay / compilation discussing the central bank issues. Many readers will follow your line of thought and perhaps stumble across the following “obstacle”, like me. After reading again the long “central bank essay” as well as other articles of yours, I get the impression that you actually believe that there is a “plan”; “some people out there” wish (and seem to succeed) to “rule the world”.
I agree that the image of a Jewish conspiracy or its variation lead by wealthy bankers families pulling the strings behind the scene is appealing to many.
I dare to suggest a modest “however” sketched in the following manner:
Centuries ago, power was concentrated differently as today. A “king” was ruling some territory and often relied on private bankers to finance wars against other “kingdoms”. At that time, peasants worked long hours in the field, had a beer in the evening, and were not disturbed as we are by too much false and less false information. In short, any kind of conspiracy was most likely easier to hide from the public. Moreover, a leak of information would take time to spread since communication tools were much slower and the number of people involved in the “conspiracy” was also limited.
Today, with fast and cheap communication tools, everyone is a specialist in something and everyone writes about anything. Sorting out “truth” from “truth but out of context” from “not exactly true” from “false” requires personal Will, Time and Energy. Thus, you might argue that this situation favors those ready to hide something from the public, since the public is notoriously lazy and not always as curious and/or educated as one might think/wish. Now comes my modest “however”: statistics.
Modern societies are more “complex” today. Basic needs remain unchanged, but the way these “needs” + all the superfluous are satisfied today involves a great number of participants.
Therefore, I argue that keeping something confidential is more and more difficult.
I wonder if a project of the size and complexity of the Manhattan Project would be feasible today, without any major leak.
The average level of education of our “elite” is most likely lower than it was fifty or so years ago and the same is true for all those working as “idiot utile” hand in hand with this “elite”. Now by increasing the number of “participant” in any conspiracy as well as lowering the technical barriers to the spread of information - combined with the lower level of education - you INCREASE the statistical rate at which a leak might occur.
One modern example of “leak” is the reaction of Mr Snowden who realized that something was wrong within the activities of the NSA and decided to speak out.
There are many “potential Mr or Mrs Snowden” out there, don’t you think ?
Which mechanism do I miss, capable to hinder “Snowden effects” ?
Kind regards, Philippe Lerch
Hi Philippe, thank you for the comment. I tried to address some of the arguments in favor of the “natural decline” theory within the long essay in this part:
https://neofeudalism.substack.com/p/dissonance-to-informational-control-397
The strongest argument against the natural decline theory, I think, is that operations like COVID, where the world acted in lockstep unison with respect to censorship, shutdowns, monetary printing, almost immediate “vaccine” rollout, and being forced to take it under job loss or worse, are possible without centralized, high level coordination betraying the existence of a deliberate force behind the curtain. There would have been variations in approaches worldwide, denial of the so-called “science”, etc - we saw a little of it in Sweden, just a tiny bit, and some rejection in Africa but that’s about it, everyone else responded in almost exactly the same way.
Going back in history, the establishment of the Federal Reserve system is a proven conspiracy - see G. Edward Griffith’s The Creature from Jekyll Island if you want the grisly details. Control is effectuated via ownership of and direction of the money supply - almost no one downstream from that level needs to be involved in an ongoing conspiracy, each group and interest naturally fills a certain niche and can be directed from above based on the amount of funding they receive.
You may appreciate the argument laid out here: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-global-world-order-is-centralized
Furthermore, I just don’t see the “natural decline” theory as predictive, and recursive prediction forms the backbone of ongoing political/spiritual insights: the trends toward ever increasing centralization and control are too often repeated. As James Forrestal, Harry Truman's Secretary of Defense, is quoted as saying, "If there wasn't a conspiracy, once in a while they'd make a mistake in our favor.”
My 2025 predictions are offered here for whatever its worth: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/2024-predictions-review-and-2025
I'm late in finding your Substack(s), and late in acknowledging your incomparable writing. I am slowly making my way through your oeuvre, but it already appears that you have masterfully elaborated into sound frameworks of elaborate reasoning many themes that have only arisen in my own recognition as hunches or as inchoate notions, if at all.
Accordingly, I regret not being able to pay for the privilege of reading your writing. Over four years ago, I walked away from work, tax liabilities, insurance premiums, anything that imposes a cost of ownership, status and the aspiration of improving it, and I also ceased earning an income when I resolved to never again supply and support the prevailing regime by my labor, sacrifice, ingenuity, or charity.
Hi aux, thank you for the nice comment. No problem about not offering a donative, and I appreciate your words on the matter; I have paid subscriptions turned off because my intent here is not to monetize this content, but to offer it's messages to anyone who wants to read it with hope that it makes a positive impact. I hope you find benefit from it in some manner.
Oh, and I forgot to say: your profile picture of those two unsavory fiends is a cunning choice. Since I first saw the picture, by following a link in a comment on ZeroHedge, I've wondered whether it shows the caught unawares Sir Evelyn chastising Charles for the latter's dilettantish blunder of allowing his close associations with Jimmy Savile out into the public. The Royal publicists must have been driven to conniptions initially about how to deal with the fallout, but they eventually handled it the way the establishment usually handles the most embarrassing disasters: official denial of the occurrence, stonewall refusal to acknowledge, media blackout, etc.
Thank you Neoliberal Feudalism, I greatly appreciate it. Abuse of genuine benevolence ordinarily reflects the basest immorality, and even the suspicion of that disgrace would mortify me. If nothing else, I hope you will be pleased to know that your sophisticated thinking and narrations, carefully and skillfully elaborated in your Substack posts, are tremendously illuminating. In truth, I'm benignly envious of your intellect and narrative proficiency. Even though it is right that lesser things should be sold and bought, while the exchange of things of great value is rewarding as much in provision as in receipt, I still wish things could be otherwise because I would be greatly honored were I able to be accounted among your donors and contributors.
Yesterday, the last day of 2023, we gathered together with Friends. We often discuss our readings and share thoughts. I took the liberty to « advertise » your essay / compilation and it was the topic of last night. The general comment is « interesting » since you browse a portrait of the historical development of central banks. The thesis hinges, among other things, on the difference between Christianity and the Roman system. It is appealing to the reader ready to go through the entire paper without cross checking the origin and content of the references you provide, because it provides some sort of explanation for the « mess » we are in. It is even hilarious when you describe different character types; we had quite some fun trying to cast ourselves into the scheme you provide. Many of us spent additional time to verify a few claims / facts, or replaced true claims in their original context. There is no point here to trigger a controversy. Every reader should do his own critical thinking homework and be allowed to conclude. I wish you a nice start into 2024, Philippe Lerch
Hi. I would appreciate pdf copy if possible. I prefer reading through e-books as they are more kind to my eyes and the content is something I would like to have a copy of, worth saving that is. Thank you.