Amos's River of Justice

Our Season of Creation

  • In a previous article I wrote about Professor Wen Yang’s YouTube video in which he argued that the Anglo-Saxons are the worst people ever. He said this was the result of the Anglo-Saxons having missed the Axial Age. Interspersed with Yang’s portion of the video was a speech by Jeffrey Sachs. Both men use similar criteria to condemn the United States. Sachs blamed what he believes is a breakdown in Anglo-Saxon culture on the degeneration of Western Philosophy. I have argued that both arguments are flawed, and I refuted their claims in two articles. Sach’s focus on the influence of Niccolò Machiavelli in Western politics was the subject of one article. The other article was about Professor Yang’s claim that the Anglo-Saxons missed the Axial Age. This study led me to ask why they would make such false claims. I have concluded that the criticism of Anglo-Saxon countries is motivated by ideology. This article and subsequent articles will expand on this idea. This article will cover Realists and the Radical Right.

    The Radical Right During and After World War II

    Misrepresentation may not have been conscious on the part of Yang and Sachs. Currently, the rise of the radical Right is one of the most important challenges faced by the US government, but it is not mentioned in the field of International Relations. The ideologies of the radical Right have been forced underground since World War II, and sometimes its ideology creeps in unrecognized. Realists have tried to guide the conversation away from it, hoping it will go away. As a result, we are all shocked to discover that the radical Right has made a ‘comeback’.

    A paper published in 2021 in Review of International Studies (RIS) 1 provides an explanation for this omission. Authors, Jean-François Drolet and Michael C. Williams, explain how and why the discipline of International Relations (IR) eliminated the radical right’s point of view.

    This is not a condemnation of realists. It’s hard to argue with the rationale of those who carried out this plan. Social scientists feared the radical Right’s negative influence on the civil rights movement and other campaigns. And they saw anti-liberal ideas as a threat to peace and democracy. This is the context in which International Relations developed.

    Today, radical Right ideas have burst into the open, and the realists’ fears have proven to be correct. At this time, it’s important to confront the fact that IR’s origins were framed as a battle between liberalism and realism. The Mearsheimer/Pinker debate, in which Steven Pinker defended liberalism and John Mearsheimer defended realism, is a good example.

    The organization of this material

    Drolet’s and Williams’ paper is a comprehensive treatment of this problem. It lays out a key part of the history of right-wing ideologies in the United States. It also discusses the people and organizations that fought them. I plan to divide this paper into sections and cover each one in its own article. This article will focus on the men and ideologies of the radical Right, as well as their influence in the United States.

    Realists and the Radical Right
    The Failure of International Relations Credit: imaginima

    The Failure of International Relations

    In the past decade, transnational networks of the radical Right have made gains in Europe, North America and beyond. Governments and political parties with conservative foreign policies have increased as a result. These networks and parties routinely use the ideology of the radical Right to contest prevailing visions of the global order. Their aim is to weaken established forms of international governance.

    Drolet and Williams argue in their paper that understanding the intellectual history of the discipline of IR will increase our understanding of right-wing thought, as well as the realist tradition. Their account should also help progressives develop a coherent identity and strategy.

    Militant Conservative Ideas in Global Postwar Politics

    Right-wing influencers were present in the West both during and after World War II. Much of the literature about these individuals focuses on European thinkers after 1948. Americans remain unaware that a similar influence was present in the United States during the same period. Right-wing ideologues were engaged with international security, geopolitics and Cold War strategy. Their ideology tended to be skeptical or hostile to liberal modernity. They insisted on racial hierarchies, cultural foundations, tradition and myth, as the basis of society.

    Drolet and Williams focus on four influential conservative voices in American foreign policy and international affairs. They include Robert Strausz-Hupé; James Burnham; Stefan Possony; and Gerhart Niemeyer. These men were not unified theoretically. However, they were aware of each other’s work and knew each other personally. In addition, they often collaborated with each other and supported the same political causes.

    All four men were backed by philanthropic foundations and engaged in Journalism and public debate. They wrote bestselling books and influential columns and lectured at US military and training colleges, and set up training programs based on their ideas. In addition to advising political leaders and candidates, they held government positions or consultancies. Surprisingly, they were also involved in the theory of International Relations. All of this activity took place while they held influential academic positions in leading American universities.

    Robert Strausz-Hupé

    Robert Strausz-Hupé immigrated to the United States from Austria in 1923. Initially, he worked on Wall Street and as editor of Current History Magazine. He joined the University of Pennsylvania’s political science department in 1940. Strausz-Hupé wrote more than a dozen books, including a book on international politics which he co-authored with Stefan Possony. In addition, both Strausz-Hupé and Gerhart Niemeyer were part of a Council on Foreign Relations study group in 1953 on the foundations of IR theory. In 1955, Strausz-Hupé established the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) at the University of Pennsylvania, with the backing of the conservative Richardson Foundation. He also founded its journal, Orbis. The FPRI quickly established ties to the military, causing Senator Fulbright to denounce them as reactionary threats to American Democracy.

    Strausz-Hupé was a foreign policy advisor to Barry Goldwater in his 1964 presidential campaign. He also advised Richard Nixon in 1968, and served as US ambassador to NATO, Sri Lanka, Belgium, Sweden and Turkey.

    The Influence of German Geopolitik

    Strausz-Hupé’ is remembered today, for his geopolitics. His connections to the radical right come to light in this context. Geopolitical ideas and reactionary politics go together, according to Drolet and Williams.

    Geopolitics became linked to organic state theories and global social Darwinism through nineteenth century theorists like Friedrich Ratzel or Rudolph Kjellen. Kjellen, a Swedish political scientist, geographer and politician was influenced by Ratzel, a German geographer. Ratzel and Kjellen, along with Alexander von Humboldt and Carl Ritter, laid the foundations for the German Geopolitik. Later their Geopolitik would be espoused by General Karl Haushofer. Haushofer influenced the ideological development of Adolf Hitler.

    Haushofer visited Landsberg Prison during the incarceration of Hitler and Rudolf Hess by the Weimar Republic. He was a teacher and mentor to both men. Haushofer coined the political use of the term Lebensraum, which Hitler used to justify crimes against peace and genocide.2

    German Geopolitik’s Political and Cultural Turn

    German Geopolitik was inseparable from expansionism, racial or societal international hierarchy, and inevitable conflict. It became more political and cultural through radical conservative thinkers like Oswald Spengler, Moeller van den Bruch, and Carl Schmitt. Culture, race and myth developed as its core, and its urgent focus became the fate of the West.

    Spengler insisted Western Civilization was in terminal decline, but Moeller was not so pessimistic. Moeller argued that Germany and Russia were young and vibrant cultures that could escape the decadent Anglo-American Civilizations and flourish in a continental partnership that would dominate the future. Similarily, Haushofer held that Eurasian land power was the geographic pivot of history, and viewed the ‘telluric’ Eurasian land powers as inescapably at odds with the ‘thalassocratic’ Anglo-American sea powers.

    Geopolitics in a European and German setting was profoundly conservative and often reactionary. Many of its proponents rejected liberal visions of politics and were especially hostile towards the United States and Britain. German Geopolitik advocated a political geographic determinism opposed to the idea of a Euro-Atlantic partnership. They claimed Europe was the true West. Europe was not part of the Atlantic world, but an alternative to it.

    Making America Geopolitical

    Strausz-Hupé and other European émigrés taught geopolitics in America. Edmund Walsh, founder of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, joined them in this task. These men taught a version of the Cold War that was a geopolitical critique of liberal modernity. They argued that the Cold War was evidence of a deeper civilizational and metaphysical crisis. These statements had the appearance of analytic objectivity, but the appearance was used to justify a blunt form of power politics.

    These men purportedly avoided the German formulation of geopolitics. Unfortunately, Strausz-Hupé’s description of German geopolitik was based on his racial categories and assumptions about European colonialism. He argued that there were two distinct versions of geopolitics. In his version, statesmen used geopolitics to achieve a balance of power. In the Nazi version, geopolitik was used to destroy the balance of power and wipe out all commitments to the shared Christian heritage of Western civilization. German geopolitik had been turned into the doctrine of nihilism and the antithesis of the principles of civilized order because it had given up the trappings of Western Civilization.

    Strausz-Hupé Borrows Key Concepts from German Geopolitik

    Strausz-Hupé himself doomed this right-wing attempt to distinguish between German geopolitik and American geopolitics. First, he endorsed the German neo-Darwinian vision of international relations as an everlasting struggle for world domination. He proposed that regional systems must be established, each one clustered around a hegemonic great power. Finally, geography and technical mastery designated America as the new epicenter of the West. All the races of Europe would use America’s military capabilities to create a stable world order out of the defeat of the Axis Powers. But there was one condition.

    Everything depended on the US leading the fight against Communism and creating an order under which a federated Europe could be subordinated within NATO. Anything short of this, including benign interpretations of the USSR’s motives would be disastrous.

    In Strausz-Hupé’s view, liberals failed to recognize that periods of peaceful, competitive coexistence were as much a part of the communist war plan against the Free World as periods of aggressive expansion. Liberalism and containment-focused realists were not capable of sharing Strausz-Hupé’s global vision. Instead, Strausz-Hupé suggested abandoning containment and using superior military power to ‘rollback’ and ultimately destroy communism. The United States must develop a military posture and strategic doctrine that maintained nuclear deterrence, but allowed America to fight limited wars and prepare for the possibility of a total nuclear war.

    James Burnham

    James Burnham agreed with Strausz-Hupé’s anti-Communism, power politics and attacks on liberal decadence. Burnham was a philosophy professor at New York University from 1929 to 1953. He lectured frequently at the Naval War College, the National War College, and the John Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, and was a co-editor of William F. Buckley’s National Review. Burnham also contributed a weekly foreign policy column to Buckley’s magazine and wrote a number of bestselling books on politics and international relations.

    Burnham had started out with the radical left as one of Trotsky’s leading American disciples. But he broke with Marxism. Subsequently, he wrote The Managerial Revolution, predicting that the coming order would be a world-conquering managerial technocracy and run by a New Class of engineers, administrators and educators. These technocrats would wield power through the interpretation of cultural symbols, the manipulation of state-authorized mechanisms of mass organization, and economic redistribution.

    Burnham’s Foreign Policy

    Similar to Strausz-Hupé, Burnham believed liberalism is incapable of understanding the brutal Machiavellian realities of politics. Also similar to Strausz-Hupé, he borrowed his ideas from Europe. He wrote a book on political theory and practice, entitled The Machiavellians. In this book, he identified a group that had been influential in Europe but almost unknown in the United States. The Machiavellians included Gaetano Mosca, Georges Sorel, Robert Michels and Vilfredo Pareto. Burnham claimed their writings held the truth about politics and the preservation of political liberty.

    He argued that all societies are ruled by oligarchs through force and fraud, and that cultural conventions, myth and rationality are all that holds them together. However, a scientific attitude toward society does not permit the sincere belief in the truth of the myths. Democracy itself was a myth designed and propagated by elites to sustain their rule under secular modernity. If the leaders are scientific, they must lie. Liberty requires hierarchical structures, cultural renewal and the primacy of patriotism, all of which were against the liberal consensus.

    The Machiavellian World View

    Burnham worked on a secret study commissioned by the Office of Strategic Services in 1944 to help prepare the US delegation to the Yalta Conference. In the resulting book, The Struggle for the World, he argued that the Soviet Union had become the first great Heartland power. Therefore, the only alternative to a Communist World Empire was an American Empire. The American Empire would be established through a network of hegemonic alliances and colonial and neocolonial relationships. This was Burham’s response to the revolutionary ideology and continuous expansion of the Soviet Union.

    In place of appeasement, he advocated a policy of immediate confrontation. Containing Communism, and overthrowing Soviet client governments in Eastern Europe would be the goal. Intense political warfare, auxiliary military actions, and possibly full-scale war would be the method.

    Machiavellianism in Vietnam

    This debate extended to the Vietnam War. Burham attacked the ‘Kennan-de Gaulle-Morgenthau-Lippmann approach because it over-emphasized the nationalist dimension of the Cold War at the expense of what he believed was its more fundamental counter-revolutionary character. He said the realists’ analysis seemed plausible, but they failed to grasp the broader geopolitical and metaphysical consequences of a withdrawal–a communist takeover of the Asian continent. He admitted that entering the war may have been a strategic mistake, but it had become America’s ultimate test of will.

    Burnham maintained a holistic approach to social theory even though he renounced Marxian theories of universal history. Like Strausz-Hupé, he saw the Cold War as geopolitical and metaphysical. He thought sacrifice was needed for survival, and America’s liberal philosophical and cultural commitments were not up to the task. He expanded on this idea in his book, The Suicide of the West.

    Stefan Possony: Race, Intellect, and Global Order

    Stefan Possony, also a collaborator of Strausz-Hupé, was also from Austria. He was involved in conservative foreign policy debates in the US for almost 50 years. He held research positions at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, the Psychological Warfare Department at the Office of Naval Intelligence, and the Pentagon’s Directorate of Intelligence. In addition he taught strategy and geopolitics at Georgetown. In 1961, he became Senior Fellow and Director of International Studies at the Hoover Institute at Stanford. Also similar to Strausz-Hupé, Possony served as a foreign policy advisor to Goldwater’s presidential campaign. Like Burham, he advocated an ‘offensive forward strategy’ in the Vietnam War. Possony became an advocate for President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s.

    Possony’s Theory of Racial Hierarchies

    Possony was also interested in racial hierarchy. Racial geopolitics was central to his vision of international order. He co-authored Geography of the Intellect with Nathaniel Weyl. In this work, the authors tried to demonstrate the racial hierarchy and geographic distribution of intellectual abilities and their implications for foreign policy. They argued that world power and historic progress depended on racially determined mental capacities and the ability of an elite to influence society’s direction. And they concluded that intelligence is directly connected to the comparative mental abilities of different races. The people with the largest amount of creative intellectual achievement since the Middle Ages are within the Western political orbit. Hence, the West’s geopolitical dominance.

    However, Possony and Weyl argued that Western dominance was threatened by technological advancement and demographic dynamics. This process allowed the less able to out-reproduce the elites. They echoed Spengler with this argument.

    As societies reach the peaks of civiization and material progress they face the threat of application of a pseudo-egalitarian ideology to political, social and economic life – in the interests of the immediate advantage of the masses who, for political reasons are told that if all men are equal in capacity, all should be equally rewarded. The resources of the society will be thus increasingly dedicated to the provision of pan et circenes (bread and circuses) – either in their Roman or modern form. Simultaneously, excellence is downgraded and mediocrity must fill the resulting gap. As the spiritual and material rewards of the creative element are whittled away, the yeast of the society is removed and stagnation results.

    Page 283 – 284
    Selective Genetic Reproduction

    Selective genetic reproduction via artificial insemination was proposed as a partial response. This followed Hermann J. Muller’s ‘positive eugenics’. Possony argued that through artificial insemination, a small minority of the female population could multiply the production of geniuses in the world.

    Possony and Weyl also argued that America’s aid policies and support for decolonization were misguided. This was similar to arguments proposed by Burnham and Strausz-Hupé. They reasoned that such policies are based on the incorrect assumption that men, classes and races are equal in capacity, and that human resources can be increased by education. These policies have unleashed the forces of savage race and class warfare in Africa and the Middle East. They also force the emigration and expulsion of the European elite. And the European elite is the only elite.

    Treason of the Scholars

    In addition to these classic tropes, these men argued that the West’s decline was partly due to the ‘treason of the scholars.’ In other words, treason of liberal intellectuals who are guilty of spreading specious egalitarian ideals. Such ideals sow envy, anxiety, dissent and disloyalty among the masses. The treasonous ‘pseudo-intelligentsia’ must be supplanted by a creative minority.

    Gerhart Niemeyer

    Gerhart Niemeyer was a native of Essen, Germany. Like Burnham, he began his career on the left as a student of the social democratic lawyer Hermann Heller. He emigrated to the United States in 1937, via Spain, and taught international law at Princeton and elsewhere before joining the State Department in 1950. He spent three years as a specialist on foreign affairs and United Nations policy. After two years as an analyst on the Council of Foreign Relations, he became a Professor of Government at Notre Dame University. He remained there for 40 years.

    His 1941 book, Law Without Force, was part of a postwar attempt to relate international law to power politics. It was influenced by Hermann Heller’s conception of state sovereignty and by Niemeyer’s despair over ‘the politically naive legalism of the Weimar left’.

    Criticism of International Law

    Niemeyer believed modern international law was unrealistic by nature and that it was partly responsible for the unlawfulness of ‘international reality’. He claimed that during the nineteenth century, international law had been transformed by the rise of liberalism into a mere instrument for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie. It now served the ideal of an interdependent global society of profit-seeking individuals. Subsequently, the rise of authoritarianism had made legal norms obsolete. Since international order is established through law, the law must be renovated based on Niemeyer’s criteria.

    The Influence of Eric Voegein, Buckley, Goldwater, and Traditionalism

    Niemeyer was influenced by Eric Voegelin, and he became a Traditionalist during his time at Notre Dame University. For decades, he was a friend of William F. Buckley. He was considered an expert on Communist thought, Soviet politics, and foreign policy, and was commissioned by Congress to write The Communist Ideology. This work was circulated in 1959-60. Like Strausz-Hupé and Possony, he worked as a foreign policy advisor on the Goldwater campaign. Subsequently, he served as a member of the Republican National Committee’s task force on foreign policy from 1965 to 1968.

    Metaphysical Meaning of the Cold War

    Niemeyer believed that political modernity is a uniquely ‘ideocratic’ epoch where dominant ideologies strive for new certainties in order to remake the world. Voeglin called this ‘political gnosticism’. The result is a world dominated by ruthlessness, absolutism, and intolerance in which logical murders and logical crimes made the twentieth century one of the worst in human history.

    These convictions led him to a radical vision of the Cold War. In his view, the Cold War became an explicitly conservative metaphysical phenomenon. Liberals failed to see that the Soviet Union was not simply a great power adversary but an implacable enemy drivin by gnostic desires of the ‘Communist mind’. He further argued that the Communist mind was a ‘nihilistic and pathological product of modernity’. So, it was natural for people to fear Liberalism as superficial, ignorant of mankind’s demonic possibilities, given to mistaken judgments of historical forces, and untrustworthy in its complacency.

    Niemeyer believed the world is at a spiritual dead end. Political orders rest on a matrix of customs, habits, and prejudices underpinned by foundational myths. So, the solution is a mystical awakening that recognizes the importance of mystery and myth in political life.

    What They Had in Common

    All four of these thinkers were fixated on space, resources, and national power, but they were also tied to a narrative of the ‘crisis of man’. This last item led to a reactionary critique of liberal modernity. By casting the Cold War in metaphysical terms, they could argue that the USSR was an extreme embodiment of the pathologies of political modernity demanding radical responses. If modern liberalism was not up to the task of fighting the Cold War, radical conservatism would have to take over. Otherwise, the West would be destroyed.

    Thinkers in the Field of International Relations Response to the Radical Right

    These men were not authoritarians, but they expressed misgivings about democracy and liberal modernism. The thinkers in the field of IR were sympathetic to such concerns, but they did not fear liberal idealism as much as they feared militant conservatism’s foreign policy, including its support for military confrontation and nuclear adventurism. Its sympathy for McCarthyism was another concern.

    Some of the IR field’s most important early thinkers took up this challenge. They systematically attacked militant conservatism’s ‘Machiavellian’ politics and geopolitical theorizing. They also used conservative insights to develop what they thought was a liberalism capable of withstanding pseudo-conservative attacks. Unfortunately, this resulted in Conservative Liberalism, which became a key part of realism.

    The Battle Lines: Cold War America and The National Review Magazine

    The National Review was founded in 1955 by radical conservative William F. Buckley. Buckley aimed to create a movement to address the most ‘profound crisis’ of the twentieth century. He argued that this crisis was a conflict between the Social Engineers and the disciples of truth who defend the organic moral order’.

    The National Review was a reaction to the advances of organized labour, racial desegregation, women’s emancipation, and the ‘satanic utopianism of communism’. It was also a response to the conformist conservatism of establishment Republicans. Buckley’s magazine was an important platform for the confrontational style of right-wing politics.

    1. Jean-François Drolet and Michael C. Williams, The radical Right, realism, and the politics of
      conservatism in postwar international thought      , Review of International Studies (2021), 47: 3, 273–293
      doi:10.1017/S0260210521000103 ↩︎
    2. Wikipedia contributors. (2024, March 2). Karl Haushofer. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 04:31, April 8, 2024, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Haushofer&oldid=1211395859 ↩︎

  • There are core philosophical differences between Europe and the ‘Anglo-Saxon nations’ of Great Britain and the United States. Europeans seem to be aware of this, but the American people are not, maybe because the American educational system does not identify America as Anglo-Saxon. Instead, we are encouraged to think of ourselves as a melting pot with a diverse heritage. As a result, I believe we are poorly equipped for dialogue with the rest of the world. On the other hand, I suspect our leaders are aware of their Anglo-Saxon identity. If so, this might explain their recent behavior. Are they operating on the premise of Anglo-Saxons v the World? More importantly, is America’s behavior inspired by hubris, or are Americans responding to a sense of isolation?

    I recently watched a video attributing the turmoil in the world to a breakdown in Anglo-Saxon philosophy and politics. In that video, Professor Wen Yang attributed the current turmoil in the world to a cultural and spiritual lack in Anglo-Saxon philosophy. He included the United States in the Anglo-Saxon category because he considers the US an extension of the British Empire.

    Yang has issued a challenge that should not go unanswered. If we the people are considered Anglo-Saxons by virtue of where we live or who our allies are, we had better be able to respond to such accusations. The purpose of this article is not to introduce a new cause, but to explore what the Anglo-Saxon label means for conversation and analysis.

    Is Anglo-Saxon Culture Uncivilized Compared to the rest of the world?

    Anglo-Saxons v the World
    Credit: duncan1890

    In Yang’s opinion, the Anglo-Saxon problem is very old. But while his argument might provide an explanation for the behavior of the United States in recent decades, his premise that the Anglo-Saxons missed the Axial Age can be disputed. Yang specifically attributes the behavior of the US and her allies in the Middle East to a lack of Axial Age influence and a resultant breakdown in Anglo-Saxon philosophy.

    The Axial Age is a term coined by the German philosopher Karl Jaspers. It refers to broad changes in religious and philosophical thought that occurred in a variety of locations from about the 8th to the 3rd century BCE. As we will see, Yang’e analysis implies that the Anglo-Saxon nations have remained uncivilized and irreligious while other cultures progressed spiritually and morally. In this context, it might even be racist. Is Anglo-Saxon culture uncivilized compared to the rest of the world? However one answers this question, the Axial Age argument is not useful or even accurate.

    The British Contribution to the Debate

    Alan Macfarlane, an authority on Anglo-Saxon culture, has a completely different interpretation of the influence of the Axial Age. There is scholarly consensus that it was Japan that missed the Axial Age, and that Japan was the only world civilization to never experience it. Furthermore, the consequences of missing it were not necessarily negative.

    Macfarlane explains the Axial Age as follows: for the civilizations that were affected by it, the world they knew was separated from an ideal philosophical world that was held in opposition and tension to that world. This resulted in the creation of world religion. The Japanese never separated their world. Therefore, Japan is not an actual civilization. Japan is an ancient shamanic civilization.

    Macfarlane reached this conclusion independently, but he has since discovered that Robert Bellah1 and Shmuel N. Eisenstadt2 discovered it as well.

    Apparently, missing the Axial Age does not lead directly to an Anglo-Saxon-type society.

    Is America Really Anglo-Saxon?

    Now we have to confront the question of whether America really is Anglo-Saxon. According to Alan Macfarlane, the United States does not have a key ingredient of Anglo-Saxon culture: boarding school. Boarding school was so influential in British culture and economics, another explanation would be needed for the presence of Anglo-Saxon characteristics in the United States.

    What is an Anglo-Saxon? Origins of Europe and Britain

    According to Macfarlane, the origin of the Anglo-sphere was the Anglo-Saxon invasions after the fall of Rome. Anglo-Saxon society had a peculiar family system. They had small, nuclear families, but they sent their children away to boarding school. Public education (the British name for boarding school) is the oldest institution in Britain, and it goes back to the Anglo-Saxon period. In Britain, children were, and still are, sent away between 8 and 13 years old. Macfarlane argues that this custom had the effect of splitting economic and social unity.

    Romantic Love and Common Law

    The children who are sent away are no longer a member of the unit of production in that household. This practice led to the development of romantic-love marriage, in addition to its economic effects. Romantic love was not inspired by the troubadours. It was a natural result of boarding school. Love was a self-choice.

    Boarding school also had common law effects. The development of Britain’s legal system was unique. British law protected the individual, in contrast to law on the Continent, which did not protect the individual. However, Europe has adopted many aspects of British law, so this difference is no longer noticeable.

    The British Trust

    The trust, is another interesting feature. A trust is a non-government hybrid unit that turns things into people and vice versa. It was devised as a vehicle to get around the king’s inheritance tax. All of the major British economic institutions were trusts. And Anglo-Saxon trusts became a key device for modern capitalist democracy. However, the British trust is not like the corporation on the Continent.

    Trusts explain how the Catholic Church can exist in Britain. Religions set themselves up as trusts. Trusts made non-conformity possible.

    Trusts also explain the relation of Britain to its empire. First, trusts can be dissolved. The British empire disappeared in 20 years because the empire was a trust. Another an important difference with Continental empires is that in Britain, these relations often continued as part of the Commonwealth after they were ‘dissolved’.

    Continental empires on the other hand, were were familistic, relational, and therefore, difficult to break out of. And once a part of the Continental empire broke away, it was out for good.

    The Cruel Streak in Anglo-Saxon Culture

    Finally we get a suggestion that these cultural practices have had both good and bad effects. On the negative side, there is a cruel streak in Anglo-Saxon culture. British society is based on confrontational, competitive, games, which are formed as clubs. Everything is individualistic and contractual. Parliament is a game, life is a game. And all of the games have teams. The Anglo-Saxon world is unfair in many ways, but it is made tolerable by humor. Humor in capitalist society acts like myth in other societies.

    The Need for Understanding

    There is tension between the Continent and Anglo-world. However, Macfarlane aims to promote peace by describing the natural characteristics of civilizations. He argues that ignorance of these characteristics can lead to misunderstandings, which are more serious today because a rapid rise in population has resulted in pressure on resources and migration. Several spheres are being mixed together. This has never happened before. These factors, combined with rapid changes in technology, have created a confused world. His books include: How to Understand Each Other3, and China, Japan, Europe and the Anglo-Sphere, a Comparative Analysis4. His point of view is a valuable addition to this discussion.

    Conclusion

    Anglo-Saxons may have a well-developed sense of humor, but clearly, there is nothing funny about the United States’ behavior in recent decades. Analysis is important, but the Axial Age doesn’t explain what we’re seeing. On the other hand, an understanding of Anglo-Saxon culture might be a good place to start.

    I was going to compare Anglo-Saxon and Continental philosophy, but I realized the focus should be on the Axial Age. The following papers deal with philosophical differences and might be useful for further exploration:

    Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy, Psychology Wiki

    America and Europe: John Locke vs. Saint Augustine by Steven Hill. This article describes how the United States came to view the ownership of property.

    Two Traditions of Liberalism by James H. Nichols, Jr. This is a review of João Carlos Espada’s book The Anglo American Tradition of Liberty: A View from Europe.

    The Anglo-Saxon Conservative Tradition 5 by Rod Preece. This book can also be read on JSTOR. Preece argues that the distinguishing mark between old and new conservatism is not between the old world and the new but between Anglo-Saxon nations and others. Anglo-Saxon ideology is best understood as Lockean liberalism.

    1. The Axial Age and Its Consequences, Edited by Robert N. Bellah and Hans Joas, Harvard University Press, 2012 ↩︎
    2. EISENSTADT, SHMUEL N. “The Axial Age : The Emergence of Transcendental Visions and the Rise of Clerics.” European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie / Europäisches Archiv Für Soziologie, vol. 23, no. 2, 1982, pp. 294–314. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23997525. Accessed 27 Mar. 2024. ↩︎
    3. Alan Macfarlane, How to Understand Each Other, CAM Rivers Publishing, 2018 ↩︎
    4. Alan Macfarlane, China, Japan, Europe, and the Anglo-sphere, CAM Rivers Publishing, 2018 ↩︎
    5. Rod Preece, “The Anglo-Saxon Conservative Tradition.” Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, vol. 13, no. 1, 1980, pp. 3–32. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3230084. Accessed 25 Mar. 2024. ↩︎

  • Considering the agricultural benefits being secured by the EU through its Association Agreement with Ukraine, one wonders if NATO expansion in Ukraine was a bluff. The United States is getting everything it wants with Ukraine’s farmland and infrastructure. The deep state is in Ukraine, and it’s agribusiness. Cargill is a key player in Ukraine and other NATO countries. Cargill may have had something to do with the new members of NATO, Sweden and Finland. It may also have had something to do with Switzerland’s decision to sanction Russia.

    NATO Expansion was a Bluff
    Ukraine War and Volatility of Food Prices Credit: simplehappyart

    The curious case of Switzerland

    On February 24, 2022, the day Russia invaded Ukraine, the only remaining neutral countries in Europe were Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland. Now there are only three. Finland joined NATO in 2023 and Sweden joined on March 7, 2024. Today, there is support for NATO membership in each remaining neutral country. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is cited as a reason to give up neutrality. But a majority in each country values neutrality. Curiously, Switzerland resisted joining NATO, but it imposed sanctions on Russia. Some say this behavior is not consistent with Switzerland’s neutrality.

    The one thing that makes sense of the behavior of both Switzerland and the United States is agribusiness. Cargill has had a presence in Ukraine for more than two decades. Cargill is a private US company, but Cargill International SA is located in Geneva, Switzerland. Maybe Switzerland stands to gain from Ukrainian farmland. NATO expansion in Ukraine may be a bluff, but Ukraine’s real estate market is for real.

    Agribusiness is part of the deep state

    On January 12, 2014, pro-Western Ukrainians descended on Kiev’s Independence Square to protest President Viktor Yanukovych’s government. On the same day, Cargill paid $200 million for a stake in Ukraine’s UkrLandFarming. Two months later, in March 2014, J. P. Sottile identified the coup in Ukraine as a corporate annexation project. It can also be argued that it was a land grab. Under Yanukovych’s regime, the Ukrainian real estate market had been closed. Volodymyr Zelenskyy opened it in June of 2021.

    According to Sottile, agribusiness is part of the deep state. Normally the deep state is associated with the oil and defense industries, but this association ignores America’s heavy subsidization of agriculture. For two decades, the Cold War alliance between corporations and foreign policy has prepared the ground for Ukraine’s break with Russia.

    I would argue that companies like Cargill were instrumental in this preparation. This pattern was already established during World War II. In 1942, Cargill began to build ships for the US Navy and towboats for the Army. More recently, in March 24, 2023, Cargill CEO Brian Sikes met with USAID administrator Samantha Power to discuss “areas of collaboration in support of USAID’s efforts to bolster democratic bright spots, support farmers in Ukraine in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country, and galvanize action on climate-smart food systems.”

    Business is good in Ukraine

    There have been claims of business instability in Ukraine, but these claims are deliberately misleading. Business activity in Ukraine is brisk. However, Morgan Williams, President and CEO of the US-Ukraine Business Council, has been claiming that Ukrainian businesses are not making future plans or expanding operations. He has to know this is not correct. Since 1992, Williams has been advising American agribusinesses on investing in the former Soviet Union. In addition to his position with the US-Ukraine business Council, he is Director of Government Affairs at the private equity firm SigmaBleyzer. Finally, Van A. Yeutter serves with him on the US-Ukraine Business Council’s Executive Committee. Yeutter is the Vice President for Corporate Affairs at Cargill.

    The UkrLandFarming investment wasn’t Cargill’s first purchase in Ukraine and Russia. In December 2013, Cargill announced the purchase of a stake in a Black Sea grain terminal at Novorosslysk on Russia’s Black Sea coast. Aside from its ability to scope out and purchase Ukrainian businesses, Cargill and other big agriculture companies, have benefitted from volatility in food prices, a direct result of the Ukraine War. Today, the Cargill family is America’s wealthiest agricultural family.

    Where do 21st Century Progressives fit in this picture?

    In 2015, I cited agribusiness as a key focus for progressives. I now believe everything that has happened since that time has been a distraction from this focus. When you also consider its nefarious activities in foreign countries, it is clear that agribusiness is a malevolent presence on the earth.

    Agricultural policies are central to human liberty, autonomy and survival. Without the ability to grow quality crops, we can’t provide the world’s population with its most basic requirement–sustenance. In addition, we can’t manage land and water resources or address climate change. Finally, we can’t plan community structure, or provide gainful employment for community members. Agribusiness corporations have usurped all of these functions.

    It’s good that this focus has become more clear. Unfortunately, now we know that no one is listening to us.

  • The fire in Lahaina on the Island of Maui was similar in some ways to what we have seen in Gaza, but on a much smaller scale. Was Lahaina a buildup to the genocide in Gaza? In this article I compare the fire in Lahaina to biblical madness in Palestine.

    We’ve almost forgotten Lahaina today because of the carnage taking place in Palestine. But Lahaina’s tragedy is ongoing. I will argue that there are similarities between Lahaina and Gaza.

    After the Lahaina fire, the coyness of city leaders was suspicious. Those who took part in subsequent press conferences seemed almost proud of the insulting and incomplete answers they gave to the press. Housing for the survivors of the Lahaina fire is still in short supply. And many residents are being evicted from the housing they have. Others have already relocated to other states. The callousness of those responsible and the preventable deaths of family members are also comparable to Gaza. Last but not least is the high dollar value of the land involved in the fire. But Gaza has an additional characteristic.

    Likewise, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been flippant and callous in his statements to the press. However, his use of Old Testament references to justify his cruelty sets Gaza apart from Lahaina. Netanyahu’s attitude has been even more smug, conceited, high-handed and pitiless than the leaders of Lahaina.

    Humor and restraint are nowhere to be found in Palestine. The behavior of Israel is heavy-handed, cruel, and ugly. And the suffering and death levied on Gaza’s people is ghastly and final. If those responsible are waiting for congratulations, they’ll wait for eternity.

    Netanyahu’s behavior does not translate as power. Nor is his behavior compatible with religious belief. It merely demonstrates childish, ignorant pride, and delusions of invincibility.

  • In Pope Francis’s encyclical, Laudato Si’ there is a section on Ecological Conversion. This section was written to encourage Christians to start thinking of their relationship to the world, to ecology and to the environment in a new way. Francis aims to encourage a new spirituality that can sustain us. In that spirit, Fr Peter Knox SJ is offering a Lenten lecture series on ecological conversion. This article is a summary of the first lecture in the series. Fr Knox wants us to leave these lectures feeling empowered to make a significant contribution in caring for our common home. He begins by quoting Pope Francis.

    I would like to offer Christians a few suggestions for an ecological spirituality grounded in the convictions of our faith, since the teachings of the Gospel have direct consequences for our way of thinking, feeling and living. …I am interested in how such a spirituality can motivate us to a more passionate concern for the protection of our world. A commitment this lofty cannot be sustained by doctrine alone, without an ‘interior impulse which encourages, motivates, nourishes and gives meaning to our individual and communal activity’.

    Pope Francis – Laudato Si’ 216

    Introduction and Definition of terms

    This series was produced by The Social Apostolate desk of the Society of Jesus in South Africa. Fr Knox begins by defining some important terms. These terms include Lent, ecology, and conversion.

    What is Lent?

    What is Lent? Lent is a time of Reflection, Repentance, and Reconciliation. It is a process of connecting ourselves with the Son of God suffering with us, and with the broken world. Catholics traditionally focus on prayer, fasting and almsgiving. This was preached in the Gospel of Ash Wednesday: Mt 6: 1-6… 16-18. But this year, Pope Francis encourages us to ‘listen to the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor’. In that way we participate in an ‘ecological conversion’. The goal is to develop habits that will remain with us through the rest of the year.

    What is Ecology?

    What is ecology? Ecology is everything that surrounds us. We are living organisms–not higher than nature or above nature. Pope Francis uses the term ‘integral ecology’ meaning that everything is inter-connected. This includes urban ecology.

    What is conversion?

    What is conversion? Conversion has an element of repentance. Repentance is being sorry for our actions. There is also the element of making good resolutions to favour a new way of life, with the help of God. Repentance and sorrow is a gift from the Holy Spirit. It is not necessarily a bad thing. We may not feel good, but it is a gift.

    Jesus announced: ‘The reign of God is at hand. Repent and believe the Good News.‘ (Mk 1:15) However, apart from Jesus’ many parables, we don’t know exactly what the reign of God looks like. What we do know is what the reign of God is not. It is not division, pollution, poverty, and struggle.

    What do we have to repent of?

    With this question, what do we have to repent of? Fr Knox addresses Christians in general. He offers a critique of the part Christians and Christian dogma have played in the present crisis. An article by Lynn White: The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis1, accuses Christians of destroying God’s creation. White says this was the result of following the injunction in Genesis 1 to subdue the earth.

    The following is Lynn White’s premise, as related by Fr Knox.

    As we enter the last third of the 20th Century, (he wrote this in 1967) concern for the problem of ecological backlash is mounting feverishly. …Modern science…modern technology is at least partly to be explained as an Occidental, voluntarist realization of the Christian dogma of man’s transcendence of, and rightful mastery over, nature…Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt. …What we do about ecology depends on our ideas of the man-nature relationship. …More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one. …[We] shall continue to have a worsening ecologic crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man.

    Lynn White

    According to Fr Knox, Pope Francis agrees with with this article. The Pope’s term for this mindset is, ‘excessive anthropocentrism‘, the belief that humans are at the center of creation.

    Pope Benedict, on the other hand was more cautious about White’s article. Benedict argued that this is not the only way of understanding what’s going wrong with the world.

    The World Struggles to Correct Past Mistakes: The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment

    In 1972, the UN had the first conference on the Human Environment, the Stockholm Conference. Since then there have been regular UN conferences and protocols relating to the environment. They include Biological diversity; the Ozone layer; Nuclear waste; POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants); LOSC (Law of the Seas); UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Control or change; this is probably the most pressing concern); SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals, where we hope to see all of humanity being able to survive in a sustainable way that doesn’t deplete the environment); Hazardous waste; CITES (Convention on the International Trade of Environmental Species); Watercourses (This is aimed at ending pollution and not blocking watercourses, or allowing water to go through and nourish all the people downstream); High Seas; Biosafety (trying to prevent disease crossing from one species to another–this should have prevented Covid19); Pesticides; Migrant species (birds, whales, fish); etc.

    How Bad is it? The Earliest Scientific Analyses

    In 1972, the Club of Rome published a book called The Limits to Growth. The club of Rome was a group of scientists based in Chicago. They used numerical modeling to discover whether the earth can continue to sustain growth. It indicated that the earth can’t handle continued growth of populations and continued growth of economies. Since 1972 this conclusion has only become more evident. The earth has a limit to what it can provide, and to the amount of pollution it can absorb.

    Planetary Boundary Theory

    The year Pope Francis published Laudato Si’, another group of scientists from around the world promoted a theory called Planetary Boundaries. Pope Francis cited at least 6 of these planetary boundaries in Laudato Si’. Much has been written about Planetary Boundary Theory. The basic argument is that the earth can only give so much and absorb so much, and after that point there will be serious problems.

    Fr Knox mentions one disagreement with Pope Francis on the subject of planetary boundaries. Francis has argued that concerns about population growth are the result of the unfair distribution of resources. If we could correct the distribution problem we wouldn’t have to limit population. Fr Knox thinks this is an optimistic assessment, and it may not be entirely accurate. However, he adds that Francis is a scientist and scientists sometime disagree with each other. Pope Francis does acknowledge that many of these boundaries are being exceeded.

    Which Planetary Boundaries are Threatened and Have Any Actions Been Taken?

    The hole in the Ozone layer (Stratospheric Ozone Depletion) was discovered in the 1980s by the Montreal Protocol. In response, countries around the world stopped using chemicals that deplete the Ozone layer. However, there are several other problems that must be dealt with.

    Additional problems include atmosphere aerosol loading (dust storms that blow across the Sahara and carry very small particles that get into human and animals lungs and cover the surfaces of leaves); ocean acidification (the Ph of the ocean is decreasing and the acid is dissolving the coral reefs. This makes them unable to sustain the baby fish); biochemical flows (two chemicals in particular, nitrogen and phosphorus, have been used for chemical fertilizer. We don’t know how much nitrates the atmosphere can absorb, but the nitrogen cycle and the phosphorus cycle appear to be out of balance at this time. Too many nitrates are coming into the atmosphere and too many phosphates are flowing into the water).

    The most concerning issues at this time are: biochemical flows; fresh water change; land system change; biosphere integrity; and climate change.

    Individuals Might Ask, What Can I Do?

    Individuals might ask, What can I do? I’m just one small person, I don’t know how to convince people. Fr Knox recommends Christians ask themselves, What would our Lord’s response be in a situation like this?

    As an example, he recites the parable of the Wedding feast in Cana. Jesus’ mother comes to him and tells him that the hosts have run out of wine. Jesus seems to say that the wine is not his problem–it is the host’s responsibility. But Mary tells the servants at the feast, Just do what he tells you.

    Fr Knox says that’s what we have to try to work out in our ecological conversion. What is Jesus telling us? What do we have to do?

    Christianity’s other-world focus

    Again, an element of the Christian belief system is implicated in the problem. This time, Fr Knox cites, Christianity’s other-world focus, or a focus on the hereafter. St Paul, for example, said that Christians should set their mind on the things that are above, not on the things of this earth (Colossians 3:2). But that can be problematic.

    It’s a problem because we have to live on this earth, to take care of this earth, and to take care of our fellow citizens on this earth. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to be accused of being other-worldly focused. We must take responsibility for what is happening in the environment.

    The Second Vatican Council addressed Christianity’s other-world focus

    This same concern was stated at the Second Vatican Council by over 2,300 bishops from around the world. Christians should not be focused only on eternity. Believers should also be involved in the world order. The bishops urged the Church to promote sustainable development and care for the vulnerable.

    The UN was also a subject of importance at Vatican II. Christians should not see the UN as the enemy of the Church. The Church may be on different track than the UN, but they are working for the same goals. The UN, together with people around the world, is trying to develop a sustainable world where people can live together.

    Today, the Catholic church has membership status in the UN and is allowed to contribute to the discussion.

    Gaudium et Spes, the Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World

    The document Gaudium et Spes was produced at the end of the Second Vatican Council. The title means Joy and Hope, and its focus is the Church in the world. It states that the Church is not living in a bubble or on Planet Mars. Church members should not see themselves as cut off from the world or better than the world. Whoever supports the human community is contributing to the Church.

    Moreover, she gratefully understands that in her community life, no less than her individual sons, she receives a variety of helps from men of every rank and condition, for whoever supports the human community at the family level, culturally, in its economic, social and political dimensions, both nationally and internationally, such a one, according to God’s design is contributing greatly to the church as well, to the extent that she depends on things outside herself. Indeed, the Church admits that she has greatly profited and still profits from the antagonism of those who oppose or who persecute her. (LG 44)

    …Christians should cooperate willingly and wholeheartedly in establishing an international order that includes a genuine respect for all freedoms and amicable brotherhood between all… Those Christians are to be praised and supported, therefore, who volunteer their services to help other men and nations. Indeed, it is the duty of the whole People of God, following the word and example of the Bishops, to alleviate as far as they are able the sufferings of the modern age. (G+8 88)

    Gaudium et Spes
    Laudato Si’

    Laudato Si’ is an encyclical in six chapters. It follows the pastoral circle, meaning that its basic routine is See, Judge, Act. We see what’s going on in the world. Once we see, we make a faith judgment, or a social judgment from Catholic social teaching. And then we take action. We have to be involved–we can’t leave it to others. To this end, we have to educate ourselves and our children.

    We have to change our spirituality. Pope Francis proposes an ecological spirituality. And ecological spirituality will be Fr Knox’s focus in these Lenten lectures. This new spirituality should make practical demands on who we are and how we live in the world.

    At the end of the encyclical there are two prayers: A Prayer for our Earth; and a Christian Prayer in Union with Creation. If nothing else you can take these prayers from this lecture. But, if you want to go further, you can undertake an ecological conversion.

    Anthropocentrism to Cosmocentrism

    Pope Francis is very clear that human beings are at the root of the environmental crisis. And no serious scientist disputes this. It’s true that there are cycles beyond our control, but the present crisis has anthropological roots. We human beings, particularly since the Industrial Revolution, are at the center of the climate change crisis.

    The term Pope Francis uses is anthropocentrism, the belief that humans are somehow at the peak of the world, and everything serves man. Women are included because they are somehow below men. Also included are money, oil, mineral resources, animals, robotics, and anything agricultural. We human beings have to change this belief and the resulting behavior, as much as we are able.

    Umdenken: Think in New Ways

    Instead of anthropocentrism, we have to move to cosmocentrism. Cosmocentrism puts the world at the center of everything–not humans. Human beings are part of a cycle of life. The earth provides for them and they provide for the earth.

    Fr Knox acknowledges that since the damage took place on a global scale over the last two hundred years, any contribution we make will seem minimal. But every effort is significant.

    Germans use the word ‘umdenken’, meaning to rethink or change our mind completely. Fr Knox considers umdenken an element of conversion. We have to think in new ways.

    1. Lynn White, The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, Science 155 no 3767, 1967 ↩︎

  • Farmers are protesting across the EU in places like Germany, Greece, Italy, France and Brussels. There are are a number of issues making their livelihoods unsustainable. These include the rising price of animal feed, fertilizer, and energy; cheaper imports from outside the EU, particularly Ukraine; high taxes and red tape; and the impact of climate regulations. Although the EU spends a substantial percentage of its budget supporting farmers, many farmers are still unable to make ends meet. And with elections looming, far-right parties are exploiting the farmers’ protests. Therefore, it’s important to understand the issues affecting the farmers. In a recent panel discussion, members of DEiM25 explain the Plight of European Farmers. Some of the issues addressed are: is there a just transition that curbs emissions while minimizing the impact on farmers? What is the role of the far-right and where are the left-wing parties in all of this?

    DEiM25 is the Democracy in Europe Movement. Its goal is to democratize Europe and make the Green New Deal a reality. Panel members taking part in this discussion include Yanis Varoufakis, Karen De Rigo, and Frederico Dolci. Yanis Varoufakis has been the secretary-general of DEiM25 since 2018. He is a Greek economist and politician. De Rigo is the lead German candidate for DEiM25 in the European elections. Dolci is the spokesperson for the associated MERA25 in Italy and activists across Europe. Erik Edman is the political director of DEiM25. He joins from Brussels.

    The reality of farming in Europe versus the oligarch’s narrative

    According to Edman, the first reality of farming in Europe is that a third of European farmers have disappeared in the last 15 years. The main cause is the takeover of farming by agribusiness. Suddenly in Europe, there are bigger machines, fewer farmers and fewer small farms. This has also been happening to farmers in the United States.

    However, in Europe, all of these outcomes are compounded by the way the European Union and member states do policy. The most well-known agricultural policy in Europe is the CAP policy, or the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union. Although CAP is the recipient of the biggest portion of the EU’s agricultural budget, 80 percent of that budget goes to 20 percent of the farmers. Therefore, 80 percent of European farmers are struggling to make ends meet. The reason for this is that CAP payments are based on land holdings, and global multinationals and a few wealthy farmers own 80 percent of the land.

    Unfortunately, many of the protesters are being mislead about the cause of their troubles. Hypocrisy and misunderstandings surround the protests. The dominant narrative among farmers and the general population is that Environmental Protection rules are the cause of their problems. But this doesn’t seem likely. The majority of the Environmental rules have not gone into effect yet. They have either not been legislated or the governments are dragging their feet on implementing them. But the fact remains that costs are rising for farmers and consumers. Why is this happening?

    Who or what is to blame for the rising costs of farming?

    The rising costs of farming have led to a steady fall in income for farmers and everyone else. The costs increased even more after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. This invasion together with the EU’s policy of boycotting Russia is at least partly responsible for the rising costs of fertilizer and energy.

    Retailers have added to the problem by taking advantage of the situation. They have raised their prices and blamed it on the rising costs of farming. But farmers are still forced to sell at the prices that were in place before the crisis. Small farmers are hurt by these factors while multinationals benefit from the CAP.

    Failing governments over the last 20 or 30 years–mostly right-wing governments–have blamed their failure on environmental rules. This hides the fact that their policies favored multinationals. In addition, they have actually been avoiding environmental policies in the same period, which could have softened the economic burden on farmers. Currently, these right-wing interests are using the farmers’ protests to roll back the few environmental rules that Europeans have managed to pass.

    Holland sacrifices its water supply for unregulated pig farming

    Right-wing or centrist Dutch governments have become an example of Europe’s short-term thinking about the environment. Holland has resisted environmental directives for so long that its water supplies have been poisoned by nitrates from pig farming. The Dutch government has been warned about this since the late 1990s. The EU even had a directive on nitrate levels that came into effect in the early 2000s. But the government consistently focused on short-term economic goals rather than the long-term threat to the water. As a result, they have been forced to shut down huge parts of their agricultural infrastructure for pig farming, destroying the livelihood of thousands of farmers. Obviously, it would have been better to act in the short-term rather than being forced to implement draconian measures.

    The response of DEiM25

    Unfortunately, the Green Party has not stepped up on this issue. Nor has the Left addressed it as much as it should have. As a result, farmers alone are bearing the burden of the environmental catastrophe. DEiM25 is trying to correct a lack of awareness on the part of progressives and the Left.

    Yanis Varoufakis: the dependence of the European Union on agricultural policies that benefit the wealthy

    Yanis Varoufakis explains how the European Union got its start. The EU began in 1950 as a cartel of heavy industry. Initially, it called itself the European Communities of Coal and Steel, and its first members were the steel and coal producing countries: Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Northern Italy. By 1951, they had also coopted car manufacturers and electrical goods companies. At this point, the EU represented the whole industrial sector of Northern Central Europe.

    Subsequently, the Treaty of Rome created the European Economic Community. The EEC was a deal between capital, heavy industry and large-scale farmers. Farmers were included because, in order for this cartel to work, it needed free trade with no borders. So, the EEC had to convince the large farmers in the Netherlands, Germany and Northern France to agree to the elimination of borders. The industrialists were able to convince the large farmers by telling them that everyone, was going to make a lot of money by cutting back on production and driving prices up. The farmers were promised a cut of this money. You could say that the CAP was the result of a bribe. And the bribe did not help all farmers.

    Class war between farmers

    Currently, the EU and EEC represent a class war on a number of levels. On one level is a class war between farmers. Small holders in Sicily, Spain and Greece are not able to take advantage of CAP, so the benefits go to large farmers in the North.

    Class war between farmers and the energy cartel

    Another class war takes place between the farmers, and the energy cartel. In the first years of the EU, electricity was provided by nationalized public utilities. But Thatcherism privatized electricity generation. As a result, electricity grids became vassals of oligarchs who own the power stations. Soon, energy prices began rising much faster than the price of agricultural commodities. The electricity cartel also benefits from the war in Ukraine.

    Class war between farmers and the agribusiness cartel

    The agribusiness cartel is all over the world. It is currently poisoning the land in Pakistan, India, and everywhere it operates. Agribusiness forces genetically modified seeds and certain kinds of pesticides on farmers. Once the land is poisoned, the seeds the farmers used before won’t work. In addition, the modified seeds don’t reproduce themselves, so farmers are forced to buy them from Bayer and Monsanto every year.

    Class war between North and South Europe

    A third kind of class war is between North and South Europe due to differences in climate and productivity in the soil.

    Class war between East and West Europe

    A forth kind of class war is taking place between east and west. The European Union, the European Commission and member states have pressured Orban and other leaders to allow Ukraine into the EU. But the business model of every farmer in Europe will be ruined if Ukraine enters the EU. Ukraine has more productive capacity for agriculture than Germany, Belgium, Holland and France together. This means that the majority of the CAP money will go to Ukraine. Other countries, such as Poland, will shift from being a net beneficiary of the CAP to being a net contributor. French farmers will be cut off and Greek farmers will be finished.

    Already Ukrainian products have been entering Europe in solidarity with Ukrainian farmers. In response, the Polish government, which used to support Zelenskyy, is now vetoing aid to Ukraine.

    Class war over who pays for the Green Transition

    As for the green transition, if you mention it to farmers in Europe, you will become their enemy. For them the Green Transition is not green and it’s not a transition. It represents certain bankruptcy. This is due to the fact that Bayer and Monsanto will not pay for the transition plans of the EU. The cartel of big business that created the EU won’t pay for it either. The consumers and farmers will pay. The green transition is an intensification of the class war for farmers and the working classes.

    Three planks of DEiM25

    DEiM25 has three planks. Varoufakis lists them as peace; basic universal income; and making the oligarchs pay for the green transition. But here again, Europe and the United States are similar. The victims of the oligarchs are turning to the right-wing and voting for parties and candidates like Donald Trump who claim to be anti-establishment. Such candidates are not anti-establishment. They are the establishment’s greatest servants. For this reason, they threaten small farmers more than they threaten large farmers. But neither class of farmers is a natural ally of the Left.

    Farmers in the North of Europe are not allies of the Left because they are capitalist employers. They support both ultra-right and center-right parties as long as they can avoid environmental legislation, or as long as they don’t have to pay for it. In their opinion, it’s better if the proletariate pays for it.

    The small holders of Greece, Italy, and other countries in the south. are more accepting of progressive policies, but they side with anti-immigration parties because they depend on undocumented laborers. Legal immigration would make them too expensive.

    The job of DEiM25, according to Varoufakis, is to create a rupture within the agricultural sector and win the support of the victims of the class war, small farmers.

    Germany’s protests began earlier and for different reasons

    Karin De Rigo provides informations specific to Germany, where the situation is different from the rest of Europe. The protests there started before Christmas, and for a different reason–the government announced a budget deficit. In Germany this automatically required that they immediately cut costs. So they cut the diesel subsidies and the tax rebate on vehicles. These cuts were not life-threatening for the companies, but they sparked protests because they came on top of everything else that was happening. Now, it is feared that the cuts will destabilize the government, so of course, the right-wing parties have taken advantage of the turmoil.

    The structure of the German market is also a factor. Germany has an oligopoly. Four corporations own 75 percent of the retailers, including the supermarkets. This means that German farmers have to negotiate with the oligarchs. But the oligarchs have the upper hand. If an individual farmer doesn’t accept their policies, he will be out of the market.

    In addition, the big corporations are vertically integrated. Supermarkets for example, own the whole supply chain, and small companies can’t compete.

    The true interests behind the protests

    Farmers protest are important, but it’s important that they protest for the right reasons. For example, food and job security. Food shouldn’t be a commodity or subject to speculation. It’s a human right. A safe job in the farming sector and a dignified salary is also a human right. Politicians should not be able to control this narrative. The protesters need to control it.

    The only path forward is to break the monopoly. CAP needs to be restructured and the system reorganized. This is the platform of DEiM25’s Green New Deal.

    The factors leading to these protests are at least 10 years old

    Frederico Dolce sees the current protests as a continuation of something that started in the time of José Bové–ten years ago. (Bové is a French farmer, politician and syndicalist, and former member of the EU Parliament.) Today, the protests claim to support anti-green policies, but green policies are not the problem. This is a false narrative proposed by a confederation representing the major firms–the same firms that push aside small farmers and down-to-earth leaders.

    An example of this confederation is Arnaud Rousseau. He began his career in commodities trading and then took over his family’s cereal farm. Another example is Danilo Calvani, a producer from Lazio. These people are only interested in more subsidies for large farms.

    The Supermarket Revolution

    Europeans have a problem matching the Green Revolution with the current agricultural system. They call this the Supermarket Revolution, and it has developed over the last 25 years. Today, 74.5 percent of fresh and packaged food goes through the corporate channels. In Italy, only 13 percent remains with traditional sources.

    In the same period, Italian farms have gone from 3 million in 1982 to 1.4 million in 2014. But the number of foreign workers, most of them employed illegally, has increased. Foreign workers account for a third of agricultural wage-earners. Dolce calls this ‘the new system’. Those in charge of the protests do not want to change the new system. They only want to obtain more favorable conditions for themselves.

    The real enemies of the agriculture world, according to Dolce, are large distributors, agribusiness industrialists, fake agricultural unionists, and a corrupt CAP system. The Green New Deal not only needs to push for CAP reform, it needs to reform the entire system.

    The historical context of the struggle over agriculture: the beginning of corporate farming

    Dafne Delkara, based in France, provides historical context. In November of this year, there was a law proposed by DEiM25 to reintroduce floor prices for producers so their minimum production costs would be covered. The measure fell short by six votes thanks to government intervention. Currently, the Left is trying to reintroduce this proposal and call for another vote. But unfortunately, the public is not aware of this effort. The media did not mention it. Instead, they continue to blame Left-wing environmentalists for the farmers’ problems.

    Guatemala and United Fruit

    Reaching back further in time, Delkara cites Guatemala as an example of how ruthless large corporations and the government can be. In 1952, the Árbenz government planned to distribute land to the peasantry. At that time, United Fruit owned a third of the arable land in Guatemala. To preserve the company’s profitable operation in Guatemala, United Fruit persuaded Harry Truman to overthrow Árbenz. Two hundred thousand Guatemalans died, including 160,000 peasants.

    Nixon, Earl Butz, and the end of New Deal farm policies

    Another historical moment occurred after the 1973 oil shock in the US. when foreclosures were sweeping the country. The foreclosures particularly devastated small farms. In the same decade, Nixon’s agricultural minister, Earl Butz, ended the New Deal era of farming policies and paved the way for corporate farming.

    Ukraine and the IMF after Euromaidan

    After Euromaidan, Europe lowered the trade barriers between Ukraine and the EU, and European farmers were priced out. Ukrainian products started flooding European markets and bringing down prices. But the trouble started before that.

    After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a decade of land privatization. During that time, many Ukrainian farms were hoarded by the oligarchic class. In 2001, in order to stop this process, the government introduced a moratorium on the sale of agricultural land.

    When Ukraine’s debt began to rise, the IMF stepped in under the condition that land reform would restart and the land market would be reopened. The peasants protested the reopening of the land market. At first, the protests were successful, but then the pandemic hit. Because the people could not leave their houses to protest, the Land Reform measures were passed.

    In June 2021, Ukraine reopened its agricultural land market. Current owners include Ukrainian multinationals, trust funds and transfers from the European Investment Bank.

    The Black Sea Grain Deal

    The Black Sea grain deal was supposed to help low-income countries. But, according to the World Bank’s numbers, only 3 percent of that grain went to low-income countries. The question is, why does the third world, especially Africa, have to depend on imports in the first place? The answer is that overproduction in European markets gets dumped on Africa. This destroys African farming.

  • Author John P. McCormick argues that Machiavelli was the West’s first Democratic Theorist. He was a forerunner of today’s left-wing populism. Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) is often interpreted as a cynic, or as a philosopher of political evil. But according to McCormick, “Machiavelli was a republican idealist whose support for popular rule can inspire struggles against the oligarchies of today.”

    This article is a follow-up to a previous post, in which Professor Wen Yang compared Anglo-Saxon societies unfavorably to ancient societies. He argued that Anglo-Saxons did not have the advantage of the Axial Age. Professor Jeffrey Sachs also thought Anglo-Saxon philosophy had lost its way, but not because it missed the Axial Age. Sachs thought their problems began when they broke with the Christian tradition. But both Yang and Sachs agreed that the political philosopher who broke with centuries of Western tradition as Niccolò Machiavelli. However, the fact that Machiavelli was writing about his own Italian Republic is an important omission. His historical context is important too.

    Machiavelli’s diplomatic and philosophical career took place during a turbulent time. The French invaded Italy in 1494 and the army of Emperor Charles V sacked Rome in 1527. Machiavelli believed that if the Italians would return to ancient domestic and military orders by rearming the citizens, the citizens could beat back hegemons like France, Spain, and the German emperor.

    Of course the Italian Republic’s trouble was nothing new. McCormick says socioeconomic elites always enable oppression of common people, in every time and place. However, there is an important difference in the way ancient republics dealt with corruption. The citizens of ancient republics would have punished their ruling elites much more severely than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were punished.

  • The State of Israel is a False Friend
    American and Israeli Flags Credit: tzahiV

    Israel has a sordid history of its dealings with the United States. This has been documented in a recently released FBI file, Isaiah L. Kenen: Foreign Agent to Founder of AIPAC. According to this document, Isaiah Kenen and the Israeli government have abused the trust of the American people since 1948. The evidence suggests that the State of Israel is a false friend. This is a summary and timeline of the relevant events.

    1948: Isaiah L. Kenen and the Israel Office of Information

    In the late 1940’s, Isaiah L. Kenen was instrumental in lobbying the US Congress, the administration, and United Nations for the creation of the state of Israel in Palestine. In 1948, he moved from Israel’s UN delegation to start the “Israel Office of Information” on behalf of the Israeli Embassy and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In this capacity, he was obliged to register with the US Department of Justice under the 1938 Foreign Registration Act (FARA), which he did. However, in 1950, with the help of the Israeli government and behind the Americans’ backs, he began planning to break free of FARA oversight. This is one of several disloyal acts revealed in his biography, Israel’s Defense Line: Her Friends and Foes in Washington.

    The American Zionist Council (AZC): Isaiah L. Kenen acts in bad faith

    Kenen eventually left the Israel Office of Information (IOI) to lobby for the American Zionist Council. He later became founder and chairman of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee known as AIPAC. It is now known that while Kenen was chairman of AIPAC he received strategic direction from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the founder of Mossad.

    In regard to the FARA registration for the Israel Office of Information, Mr. Arthur C.A. Liverhant, Second Secretary of the Israeli Mission, conferred in September of 1948 with Mr. Lenvin and Bernard S. Morris. Mr. Liverhant stated that offices were being established in Washington and New York with a director for each. Lenvin and Morris explained the registration process as well as the filing and labeling requirements.

    On October 10, 1948 Mr. Liverhant submited a foreign agent registration cover letter for a new “Israel Office of Information”. It named Rita Grossman, Bernard Zamichow, Isaiah Kenen, Harvey Rosenhouse and Harry Zinder as officers. Kenen was named as “Director of Information” of the New York office. He filed his personal Foreign Agent Registration on November 1, 1948. However, he failed to report his connections with foreign officials, such as Abba Eban and David Ben-Gurion. This also was not revealed until he published his biography.

    Unreported Israel Office of Information Office in the Los Angelas Consulate: DOJ Files Defenciency Record and Notice

    The DOJ submitted a Deficiency Record and Notice covering the dates from December 1948 to June 1949. It had discovered that the existence of another office in the Los Angelas Consulate had not been reported. The Israelis were advised to correct these deficiencies in the next supplemental statement.

    On June 30, 1950, Mr. Kenen submitted a supplemental registration statement for the Israel Office of Information. He did not disclose a trip to Capitol Hill to lobby for US arms and aid to Israel in January of 1950.

    Kenen Advised to File a new registration statement FA-1 for the Israeli Office of Information.

    The following memo was submitted to the FBI file on January 17, 1951.

    Mr. Isaiah L. Kenen, Director of Information for the Government of Israel’s Mission to the United Nations and one of the officers of the Israeli Office of Information, visited my office on January 17, 1951 to discuss his possible obligations under the Foreign Agents Registration Act in the event he terminates his present activities and establishes his own public relations business.

    Mr. Kenen stated that his first client would probably be the Government of Israel and consequently I told him that he should file a new registration statement on Form FA-1. I explained to Mr. Kenen the registration statement of the Israeli Office of Information and the necessity for the filing of a new statement. Mr. Kenen stated that he would file a new statement as soon as he commences his activities on behalf of the Government of Israel. Suitable forms were given to Mr. Kenen.”

    FARA Section Memo by Nathan Lenvin concerning Isaiah Kenen’s visit

    Kenen Claims he is resigning from the IOI and Severing Ties with the Israeli Government

    However, on February 13th 1951 Kenen announced he was resigning from the Israeli Office of Information and severing ties with the Israeli government. He requested that FARA remove his name from their lists. This request was acknowledged by FARA Section chief William E. Foley.

    Kenen also submitted financial statements to the FARA office in April of 1951 and requested that his name be withdrawn from the IOI file. Three months later, an Israel Office of Information press release announced plans to solicit skilled workers.

    On the same day, James X. Kilbridge requested that the IOI Department of Professional and Technical Personnel be exempted from FARA registration requirements. The DOJ’s William Foley agreed. (No further information is available about Mr. Kilbridge.)

    The New York Times Announces Kenen’s appointment as the Washington Representative of the AZC

    In February of 1952, The New York Times published a short article entitled “I.L. Kenen in Zionist Unit Post“: 

    “The appointment of I.L. Kenen, former director of information for the Jewish Agency in Palestine, as the Washington Representative of the American Zionist Council, the public relations arm of Zionist groups in this country, was announced yesterday by Louis Lipsky, chairman of the council.  Mr. Kenen, who also has served as director of information of the Israel delegation to the United Nations, recently returned from Israel.”

    In March of that year, Kenen advised the FARA section office of his travels to Israel and receipt of Israeli government funds. However, he did not disclose conducting tours and lobbying initiatives with visiting congressmen on behalf of the Israeli government while he was there. The congressmen included Senator Javits and Congressmen Ribicoff, Fugate, Keating, O’Toole, Barrett and Fein. (This is detailed in All My Causes)

    Kenen claimed his employment at the American Zionist Council “expired” before his Israel visit, but he immediately returned to AZC lobbying. Even so, he claimed to be exempt from FARA requirements. (He presented his term at the AZC as ‘uninterrupted’ in his biographies.)

    FARA section gives Kenen a clean bill of health

    In April, FARA section responded to Isaiah Kenen “You state, however, that during the trip to Israel you did not publish or transmit to the United States any documents or propaganda material.  In view of your statement, you were not acting within the United States as an agent of a foreign principal…”

    The FBI Asked Assistant Attorney General Warren Olney III if they should investigate the Israel Office of Information

    The FBI director received and forwarded copies of Israel Office of Information literature in April of 1952. This literature was circulating without foreign agents disclosure stamps (a typical disclosure would read: “A copy of this material is filed with the Department of Justice where the required statement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of the Israel Office of Information as an agent of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is available for public inspection.  Registration does not indicate approval of this material by the United States Government.“)  The FBI asked Assistant Attorney General Warren Olney III if the FBI should begin an investigation of the Israel Office of Information.

    Kenen had continued to work at the AZC.

    In 1962, the AZC was ordered to register as a foreign agent.

  • Why No One Denies Anything to Netanyahu
    Dolphin-class Submarine

    In a Neutrality Studies interview, Professor Dr. Dr. H.C. Wolfgang Streeck explains why no one denies anything to Netanyahu. They fear he might use nuclear weapons on his neighbors. This interview was based on an article Dr. Streeck wrote on this subject in December of 2023.

    If Streeck is correct, this explains President Biden’s unwavering support of Israel’s brutality during an election year. It also suggests why Biden’s support of Israel is not unique among American leaders, including Donald Trump. Nor is it unique to the United States. Aside from South Africa no government has done anything to stop Netanyahu.

    None of this is Biden’s fault. It’s not even the fault of the United States. That might sound strange. Lately, everything seems like the fault of the United States. But the most likely culprits have escaped notice. The United States did not create the overarching threat of nuclear weapons in Israeli hands. France was the first country to supply Israel with the ability to make nuclear weapons. Germany has contributed to Israel’s expansion and nuclear arsenal since World War II. The Israelis now have a ‘tripod’, which means submarines, missiles, and fighter jets. Their huge fleet of fighter planes is capable of going to Tehran and back without refueling, and while carrying a nuclear payload. And their Dolphin-class submarines are capable of being fitted with nuclear warheads.

    The nuclear arsenal of Israel is not just playing a part in the strategic decisions of Israel, but in the behavior of its neighbors. It is estimated that Israel has about 400 nuclear warheads of different kinds. By some estmates, Israel has the most technologically sophisticated nuclear arsenal, just behind or on par with the US.

    And it gets worse. The Israelis haven’t admitted they have nuclear weapons. This means there are no inspections and no formal nuclear policies. That’s serious enough, but when you consider that Israel’s neighbors in the the Middle East don’t have nuclear weapons at all, you begin to understand why Netanyahu feels so free to butcher the Palestinians. Israel’s neighbors in the Middle East offer no deterrence to Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

    How did this happen? France’s contribution took place before the Unite States entered the world stage. Germany’s contributions have been taking place since World War II. After the war the Germans were being supervised by the United States. However, they did some things on their own initiative.

    Streeck blames Germany’s courting of Israel on an absence of an identity, its dependence on the United States, and its pariah status. For these reasons, the Germans thought it was important to have some kind of good relations with Israel. After 1949, there was a conversation about reparations between Germany and Israel’s David Ben-Gurion. They discussed what Germany could do as compensation for the Holocaust. Ben-Gurion was quite clear that he needed support for expansion in Palestine, and Germany gave him that support. More recently, Germany has supplied Israel with six Dolphin-class submarines capable of being fitted with nuclear warheads. That’s how Streeck explains it anyway.

    I would put it this way: Germany made an alliance with Jews who happen to live in the most strategic location in the Middle East. Out of guilt. Never mind that every conqueror in the modern age has had designs on that place, incuding Hitler. But back to the interview.

    The fact that the Israeli government can pursue the strategy they are now pursuing has something to do with their confidence that if American public policy weakens US support, they have their own tools. So, there is a sort of intelligence feedback loop. The Americans are aware that if they don’t support Israeli policy in relation to Palestine, the Israelis will do it themselves. Then Israel might do things that are out of the control of the United States.

    I was worried before watching this interview by suggestions for electoral stategy in the US. There are journalists who say we can’t vote for Joe Biden because of his part in the genocide of Gaza. Some say outright that Trump is a better choice. It’s hard to explain these comments from reasonable people. We know that President Donald Trump helped Netanyahu’s reelection chances. He did this by recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heighs. Israel illegally seized the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967, and since then every American administration has considered it ‘occupied’ territory. But not Trump. Trump also moved the US embassy to Jerusalem against the wishes of the Palestinians. And, since October 7, candidate Trump has assured Israel of his support.

    I agree that the US should support Israel when it is attacked by Hamas, but electing an eratic character like Trump is not the solution. Trump is no more concerned about the Palestinians than Netanyahu.

    Another thing to consider is whether this attack on Gaza is part of a strategy to elect Trump. If Netanyahu prefers Trump to Biden, which I think he does, humiliating Biden would be a good way to help Trump. And if Streeck is right, there’s nothing Biden can do about it.

    If you’re waiting for my suggestion of who you should vote for, you may have missed the point of this article. I predict that Netanyahu will continue to pound the Palestinians until the election. And if that’s what he wants to do, no one will stop him.

  • The book, Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile1, paints a disturbing but convincing picture. It’s convincing because it explains the way the world behaves. Did the Germans win the war?

    I’m not just referring to the claim that Martin Bormann lived out his days as a free man in Argentina. Or that after the war, he took the wealth looted from defeated countries with him to Argentina. And it’s not just that he took that loot out of Germany with the knowledge and approval of Germany’s industrial leaders. It’s also that Bormann was carrying out well-laid plans to help German industrialists and bankers take control of the global economy. And it can be argued that the world is living with the consequences.

    Our curiosity has been put to sleep by the horror of the Holocaust

    The Holocaust is the event that stands out in the last century. It’s a horror story you can never get out of your head. And because it’s so prominent in the collective imagination, it masquerades as the entire purpose of World War II. After all, what other explanation is needed? We know about Nazi racism, European anti-Semitism, and the Nazi belief that the German race had to be purified. We also know that everywhere the Germans went, they arrested and deported the Jews. What Manning’s book does is awake the natural curiosity that has been put to sleep by the real horror of the Holocaust. The underlying purpose of the war was theft in the service of supremacy.

    1938: The Jews are required to register their wealth

    The boldfaced robbery of German Jews is the first important fact of World War II. Anti-Semitism justified it, but the same pattern has been repeated in wars that don’t involve anti-Semitism. In 1938, a Nazi Law Forced Jews to Register Their Wealth—Making It Easier to Steal. This was shortly after Nazi Germany annexed Austria. At that time, Hitler’s government issued a decree requiring all Jews in both Germany and Austria to register any property or assets valued at more than 5,000 Reichsmarks. This amounted to around $2,000 in American currency of the period, or $34,000 today. All types of property were included: furniture, paintings, life insurance, stocks. Aryanization was the name for the state-sanctioned theft that followed, and it totaled about 7 billion Reichsmarks. This process was made more painful by the fact that Germany’s Jews had already been methodically removed from public life, civil service, and business.

    The Jews were robbed even when they decided to leave. This is further evidence that theft was the underlying purpose.

    For those Jews with the means to leave the country, legally emigrating meant relinquishing 50 percent of one’s monetary assets, and then exchanging the rest of the remaining Reichsmarks for the currency of whatever country would be the final destination. “By late 1938, they were allowing Jews to keep only 8 percent of what their Reichsmarks were worth in the foreign country,” Hayes says—which only made it harder to find a safe haven, since the Jewish refugees couldn’t take any of their savings with them.

    Lorraine Boissoneault, Smithsonian Magazine

    1939: The Jews are robbed of intellectual property

    One thing you can say about the Nazis is they were thorough. They even robbed the Jews of intellectual property.

    A 1939 executive order required all Jewish men to add ‘Israel’ as a second name and women to add ‘Sara.’ This made it easier for Nazi officials to deny intellectual property registrations and renewals to Jewish applicants, cutting them off from the IP system… 

    In some instances, works by Jewish authors were nearly completely reproduced and distributed by others without their consent. One example of an Aryanized work is Alice Urbach’s So kocht man in Wien!, a Viennese cookbook. Urbach was forced to transfer the rights to her book, which was then republished with new authorial credit to “Rudolf Rösch.” The new work kept most of the original texts and photographs of her cooking demonstrations but removed elements celebrating Vienna’s diversity. 

    In the field of medicine, Dr. Josef Löbel’s Knaurs Gesundheitslexikon was a health encyclopedia that, after the Otto Liebmann publishing house was taken over by a Nazi publisher, was republished by the author Herbert Volkmann under the pseudonym “Peter Hiron.” Volkmann even added new sections on race, homosexuality, and prison psychology. He similarly usurped authorship for Dr. Walter Guttman’s Medizinische Terminologie and its ongoing publications.

    Library of Congress Blogs, The Seizure of Jewish Intellectual Property Ahead of World War II

    The Holocaust as a distraction from Germany’s need for Jewish wealth

    The Jews of Austria, Poland and Eastern Europe were also methodically robbed. Much of the stolen wealth went to generous social programs back home in Germany. But most of it funded the Nazi war machine. If Hannah Arendt knew about this when she wrote about the Eichmann trial, ‘the banality of evil,’ was a perfect description of what happened.

    In hindsight, we shouldn’t be surprised that World War II was all about annexing and looting defeated countries. That’s what war has always been about. It is highly disturbing that Germany looted its own citizens, but it was terribly logical considering the need for war funding. I’m arguing that the Holocaust has erased our common-sense understanding of war. The theft or recovery of wealth is war’s basic motivation.

    The troubling nature of capitalism is not Germany’s fault

    Paul Manning’s claim that the theft never stopped is the most disturbing part. His story suggests that the industrialists who funded the Nazi Party won the war. It may be more correct to say the German economy won the war. In this light, it is tempting to blame the current state of Western capitalism on the German takeover. But the troubling nature of capitalism is not Germany’s fault.

    Woodrow Wilson revealed the nature of capitalism in 1920. Professor David Harvey quoted Wilson in his video on Class Nation and Nationalism. This is Harvey’s summation: ‘Relations between nations are connected together by the fact that every capitalist wants a market and wants to spread market exchange all over the world. Therefore that market process must be protected by that nation-state in relation to other nation-states in battering down the walls between them.’

    Putting the Holocaust in its place opens the way to enquire about what was happening in Germany before World War I. The history books say that Germany’s punishment after the Great War that led to World War II. This punishment was an indirect consequence of liberalism.

    Two faces of liberalism

    Liberalism enabled the use of economic sanctions and blockade. Nations could be controlled by economic warfare because they had become tied together in the system of market exchange. However, this represents a surrender to temptation by the powerful states. It was not liberalism’s original mandate. There are two faces of liberalism.

    In the 19th century, the prevailing doctrine of free trade liberalism protected global trade from wartime measures. It shielded countries such as Germany from efforts to target their foreign dependence. Germany’s industries depended on foreign minerals such as manganese, which it paid for through a global financial system centered on London. Through this mechanism, Germany was able to obtain resources that it did not itself possess. But that changed during the Great War.

    The other face of the liberal order: sanctions, and the Great War

    So the important question becomes, how did the Great War start? First, German unification upset the balance of power in Europe in 1871. Then Germany proceeded to form an alliance with Austria-Hungary and Italy. This represented a new threat to the existing order, and it was reinforced by the ambition of its leader, Kaiser Wilhelm II. The Kaiser had plans to build a battle fleet to rival Britain’s. He eventually switched his spending from the navy to the army, but his relationship with Britain never recovered.

    Naturally, Britain negotiated agreements with France and Russia. This led to fear of encirclement on the part of Germany. Tensions escalated when Germany tried to oppose a French takeover of Morocco and Britain supported France. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the final straw. Finally, the enmeshment of these countries in the liberal global economy increased the pressure on Germany by allowing the use of economic warfare.

    The modern history of the economic weapon

    The modern history of the economic weapon began during World War I. Britain and France tried to isolate Germany and its allies from the global economy. They sought to starve their economies of resources and their citizens of food, even though the suffering caused by this tactic was well understood. It was considered a regrettable necessity: 300,000-400,000 people in Central Europe died of starvation or illness thanks to blockade, while 500,000 perished in the Ottoman Empire. Germany, for its part, used U-boats to cripple transatlantic shipping.

    Economic and financial sanctions continued as a way to reinforce the authority of the League of Nations during the interwar period. However, the economic weapon was now claimed to be a weapon of peace. Powerful nations realized they could employ sanctions without any declaration of war. They also told themselves it could be used as an alternative to war. But sanctioned states took different lessons from this treatment.

    What the Nazis learned about liberalism from sanctions and blockade

    The Nazi leadership saw the threat of foreign sanctions as further justifying its hegemonic ambitions—the more territory it influenced or controlled, the less vulnerable it would be to the Jews and Bolsheviks, whom it believed, or claimed to believe, were orchestrating the international campaign against Germany. The Nazi’s behavior can be largely explained by this liberal tactic of sanctions and blockade.

    Just as they were a century ago, the crucial dilemmas of sanctions are the dilemmas of liberalism. Is the world better off when countries are interdependent with each other than when they hold themselves aloof? How far do you go in cutting countries out of the world economy when they turn to conquest, or look to spread illiberalism? Is the economic weapon really so much better than the military one?

    International economic coercion is the dark shadow cast by the global liberal economy. Sanctions would not be nearly so effective in a world where liberalism had not won. Isolation from global trade and finance are painful precisely because they are so intertwined with the workings of national markets. In a world of complex supply chains spanning dozens of countries, and global financial systems that are woven into the warp and woof of local banking relations, it is impossible to tell where the domestic economy ends and the international economy begins.

    lawfaremedia.org, The Modern History of Economic Sanctions

    The Jewish case compared to the Balkans

    Now let’s return to the Jewish case, as compared to the Balkans. Similar to the Jewish experience in Nazi Germany, widespread economic violence was committed during the 1990s Balkan wars. The plunder obtained in this way financed and sustained armed groups, ensuring that the conflicts could continue. However, in most of the cases presented at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY, the focus is on violations of civic and political rights. Only a few cases deal with violations of economic rights.

    As a consequence of this prosecutorial approach, the underlying war criminal networks that supported the war – war profiteers, organised crime gangs, illegal smugglers of gasoline, people, weapons and so on – remained invisible, even though their connections to political parties and elites that emerged during and after the conflict are well-known facts.

    Elma Demir, UN Court Archives reveal the political economy of the Balkan Wars

    The Jewish case as compared to Gaza

    Again, there are similarities in the Jewish case compared to Gaza. Israeli soldiers have looted millions in money and gold from Gaza since the war started.

    Gaza’s government media office said it had received “dozens of reports from residents of the Gaza Strip on the issue of stolen money, gold, and artefacts” over a period of 92 days, which ran from 7 October to Saturday.

    The office said the items were valued at 90 million shekels ($24 million) and were “seized by the Israeli occupation army”, The New Arab’s Arabic-language sister site al-Araby al-Jadeed reported.

    Israeli soldiers have boasted of the items they have looted in videos posted to social media.

    The media office said the thefts occurred in various ways, with thefts at checkpoints of bags containing valuable belongings, and raids on the homes of people who were asked to evacuate.

    The New Arab

    It is estimated that the Israeli Army may have looted possessions worth tens of millions of dollars in addition to taking personal belongings from Palestinian citizens.

    Israel is the servant of the global liberal order

    The policies of Israel today are blamed on Netanyahu’s right-wing government. But this government has controlled Palestine for 20 years. The identity of Netanyahu and his cabinet is irrelevant. They could be almost anyone. Their Jewishness is a necessary convenience. But, to the extent that he is really Jewish, Netanyahu must be tortured by the knowledge that the Mossad was commanded to stop its Nazi-hunting after the arrest of Adolf Eichmann.

    According to Paul Manning, the Mossad was threatened with a loss of financing if they continued to search for Nazis. This illustrates the extent to which Israel is the servant of the global liberal order.

    1. Paul Manning, Martin Boumann: Nazi in Exile, Lyle Stuart Inc. Secaucus, NJ, 1981 ↩︎
error: Content is protected !!