Thursday, March 20, 2014

Let us Pray: The Religious Markings of Keynesianism

By, Chris Rossini

Gary North produced some intellectual gold this morning:
"Keynesianism has the markings of a religion. It has a confession: "Fiat money overcomes recessions." It has an agenda: salvation by economic growth. It has a doctrine of omniscience: monetary central planning. It has a priesthood: Ph.D-holding economists. It has evangelism: Congress, the universities, and the mainstream media."

Chris Rossini is on Twitter


  1. Seems like a riff off Ellen Finnigan:
    Democracy is a “religion” in every sense of the word: It deals with an unseen, mystical force (the popular will); it has a priestly class that discerns the popular will (politicians and the media); it has martyrs (soldiers), rituals (voting) and dogmas (“every vote counts”); it aims to fulfill the spiritual need of human beings to be a part of something larger than themselves; and it treats non-believers (non-voters) as heretics to be shamed and ostracized.

  2. What about a cascading series of cross-defaults in the derivatives markets? Dr. North's objection seems to be some flavor of "It can't possibly happen here." By that logic, the Roman Empire should still be a going concern. When the Western fiat currency systems are considered as a whole system, what immunizes that system from hyperinflationary expansions of money and credit, if something "slips" at the edge of the system, where the central banks cannot control it. Is Dr. North proposing that the central banks are, in fact, omnipotent? The strange attractors of a chaotic system like the economy are subject to radical, catastrophic reorganization when the system is driven by external input, such as central bank money and credit expansions. If Dr. North truly believes that his "Superclass" can predict and control the entire world economy all by itself, that it can spin real wealth out of whim, then why isn't he a Keynesian? It is true that Mr. Sinclair does not present the viewer with a scenario explaining how his scenario could play out, but Dr. North does likewise not layout any real mechanism by which the "Superclass" can control the world economy in such a way to make it immune to Dr. Von Mises crack-up boom on a global scale. If people around the world turn sour on the dollar's ability to remain a store of wealth, what will American's sell the people of the world to maintain that value? The world is only anxious to sell goods to Americans because they perceive the dollars as valuable. Dr. North's question should not be: "Who doesn't want to sell to Americans" but rather: "What, actually, do Americans have to sell that the world might want to buy in quantities that might soak up the veritable sea of dollars sloshing around in the world?" US productive capacity is being undermined and hollowed out. I'm not sure about Jim Sinclair's time-line, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility into the indefinite future. Large systems CAN and DO collapse, despite the wishes of all participating in them.

  3. Along with "progressive" ideas in general, let's have the courts declare them religions and then let's ban the teaching of them in any government school or facility. And then let's fire all the people who ever taught this religious nonsense and cut off their pensions.

  4. Rothbard described Marx as an End Time religous nut:

  5. @Bob Roddis,
    I actually suggested that once:
    Declare traditional religions to be art forms (and then the govt would subsidize them) and the arts to be religions - then they'd be banned in an instant;

  6. @Rossini/North

    It should be Let us PREY, in this instance....

  7. Unfortunately, I think these "ideas" are like a religion to their followers. Has anyone ever found a single Keynesian who understood the simple concept of violent government intervention vs.non-intervention? Has anyone ever found a single Keynesian who understood the simple concept of prices as essential information? Has anyone ever found a single Keynesian who understood the simple concept of intervention causing distorted prices and thus distorted information? I never have.

    How can a Keynesian claim that non-intervention has failed without being able to run that simple concept through his/her mind?

  8. Gerard Casey has a talk that covers this over at from an Austrian Scholars' Conference a while back as well. He does it for 'Environmentism', too. Al Gore = pope.

  9. The new normal is no longer the interventionism of Keynesianism which created a moral hazard based prosperity, but rather the interventionism of authoritarianism which features a debt servitude based austerity.

    Now with the bond vigilantes in control of the Benchmark Interest Rate, after Yellen’s first FOMC meeting, and with the bear stock market that began March 14, 2014 fully entrenched, credit as a way of life, and is over, through, finished and done; the world has pivoted into the age of austerity and debt servitude.

    Authoritarianism has the markings of a religion. It has a confession: Diktat money for all to establish regional security, stability, and sustainability. It has an agenda: salvation by regional economic governance. It has a doctrine of omniscience: totalitarian collectivism. It has authority: regional framework agreements. It has a priesthood: Regional leaders working in public private partnerships. It has evangelism: the mainstream media.


    This blog seems to have been set up only in mid Feb, apparently to continue the campaign against religious fundamentalists and "brutes" begun by Tucker. That again suggests that Tucker's offensive is part of some bigger cultural offensive against libertarianism, and since his rhetoric exactly matches the CIA's own stated polices, on behalf of which cultural shock-troops like Femen are evangelizing in Eastern Europe, it suggests that this is all indeed propaganda from the government.
    Notice that this blog springs up around the same time, continues the "gorilla" meme (hinting at Darwin and dissing creationist beliefs). Notice that it avoids all other manifestations of brutalism (such as rude or uncivilized behavior from the ideological cohorts of the establishment) and simply demonizes religious teaching.

    It suggests that since the NAP is not violated by something like promiscuity or even consensual prostitution, people who find such behavior to be sinful or wrong on other grounds, must themselves be regarded as illibertarian.

    There are too many fallacies in the blog post to even address, but to start with the NAP itself cannot be asserted unproblematically without appeal to other principles that are in themselves the basis for the extra-NAP morality on which religious teaching is grounded.

    I think Laurence Vance might find this blog interesting.
    I will just note that the author claims to have worked for Ron Paul, Sarah Palin and in some Republican state legislatures but to my ears sounds just like your standard or garden lefty.
    Of course, anyone can set up a website and claim anything. He is also, incidentally, a copy-writer.
    Incidentally, Agora Inc. is a marketing empire which hires thousands of copy-writers. Just saying.

    1. "This blog seems to have been set up only in mid Feb, apparently to continue the campaign against religious fundamentalists and "brutes" begun by Tucker. That again suggests that Tucker's offensive is part of some bigger cultural offensive against libertarianism"

      I don't buy Tucker's deliberately vague nonsense for a second. As for as this blogpost you linked to is concerned, i don't see any "cultural offensive against libertarianism" at all, unless you equate a particular cultural conservatism with libertarianism (which would be utter self-serving nonsense). In which case, pray tell, why would 'lefty' libertarians not have an equal right to blast religious fundamentalists as religious libertarians have to blast things like 'libertinism'?

      The blog post had some good and some bad.

      Maybe you should make an attempt to address the many fallacies.
      Because aside from a few subjective things i didn't see all that many "logical" problems with it.

      Especially since the author acknowledged that the 'brutalists' that HE is referring to have every right to feel the way they do.

      "but to start with the NAP itself cannot be asserted unproblematically without appeal to other principles that are in themselves the basis for the extra-NAP morality on which religious teaching is grounded."

      Actually, i'm interested in knowing what "extra-NAP morality on which religious teaching is grounded" you're talking about, specifically.
      Also, you claim the above quote is a fallacy. But all you've done is make an assertion without substantiating it. So i'd like to know WHY the NAP itself cannot be asserted unproblematically without appeal etc...

      By the way, you can not be pro-NAP on the one hand, and pro-minimal government (minarchist) on the other. A government of any size implies a monopoly of force, by virtue of its monopoly (outlawing competing service providers by self made and self-serving laws), and by virtue of how it must extract its funding.
      Can i assume you're an anarchist?


    Check out this site, set up in Feb 2014 and seems to be devoted to boosting Tucker's piece..pushes "Gorilla" meme...and attacks only religious fundamentalism specifically, trying to eliminate them as libertarians.

    It suggests to me that this whole "brutalist" = gorilla - religious fundamentalists = Jesus believers = Jesus (remember that fresco that morphed Jesus' face into that of a chimp?) business was a coordinated campaign.

    Notice also that the author is a copywriter. Agora Inc. employs thousands of coywriters.

    Author claims to have worked for Ron Paul campaign (but shows no proof that he did). Also for Palin, Republican state legislature...etc...etc...but he sounds just like your typical lefty.

    Gvt/corporate entities are good at setting up astro-turfing sites to promote views as though they are popularly held. Infiltration requires pretending you share a view/background to establish credibility.
    Not saying it's that, but just check it out.

    Have watched and analyzed scores of such interesting websites that pop out of nowhere, written by people whose resumes seem created for the task....

    I wish someone else would check it out and get a feel for it. He's on the sites supporting Tucker and attacking religious fundies.

    1. Hi, Lila

      I'm Jack, the author of that piece.

      My site could hardly be devoted to Tucker's piece: I set it up for my own reasons, as you can read about in the About page: I decided to start blogging. Simple as that.

      As for a gorilla "meme": I'm afraid you misunderstood my symbolism.

      The 'gorilla in the room' is the fact that there is a divide amongst libertarians; the imagery of 'gorilla' itself was not intended to represent any single person or group of persons.

      I did not "attack" religious fundamentalism: I merely highlighted that Tucker branded religious fundamentalism as a form of "Brutalism," and then I wanted to try and explore what this meant, and how it contributed to Tucker's article becoming contentious.

      What is Agora.Inc? You will notice in my Author page that I stated I had *decided* to become a freelance copywriter: I am still breaking into the business. Maybe you can throw some work my way ;)

      As for the Ron Paul campaign, you will find it difficult for anyone organized at the state level to provide "proof" of that. What do you want, tax returns? I was not paid for my work. I have no idea where you got the idea I worked for Palin or the Republican party or legislature...Palin's name isn't mentioned once on my site. And, the only time I mentioned Republican party was when I explained how their conduct has caused me to fall out of favor with them and abandon partisan politicking.

      What you may have saw was the link to the policy think tank I had interned for: please actually click on that link and see what they are about.

      "he sounds like your typical lefty." I had to lol at this. Where did this come from? My defense of property rights? The espousing of the Non Aggression Axiom? My assertion that the State violates both?

      I am flattered that you feel my background 'establishes credibility,' and that my resume "seem[s] created for the task." I was hoping my personal journey and experiences would help me out! But it's all real. Again, I lol'ed.

      As for "interesting websites that pop out of nowhere," again, I am flattered you found the site interesting. Follow me on Twitter or something ;) Every site/blog has to start somewhere: my blog wasn't started back in '05 like yours, but then again I am guessing I am a lot younger than yourself. If in your opinion anytime someone starts a blog at a more recent date then yours it is 'coming out of nowwhere' I am afraid I don't follow the logic.

      I guess I could've hired that sky writer after

      Anyway, I too wish that "someone else would check it out and get a feel for it." Better yet: subscribe!

      Next time you have such serious issues with a piece of mine, or want to engage in suppositions, at least leave a comment or email for me at my blog so I can more easily address you. I welcome the dialogue and the controversy: feel free to fire away in my own comments section.

  12. The guy uses the same language I used in this piece where I was arguing AGAINST hate speech codes (as in Canada) and supporting Ron Paul.

    He also used some other language I'd used in another blog post....might just be coincidental, but it's downright creepy.

    The whole piece is Orwellian, equating Rand and Ron Paul and claiming that they are pushing the liberty movement away from where it should go.

    (This is my old piece about free speech in Canada

    The Canada case of course was about POLITICAL speech..specifically, freedom to criticize neo-cons. To wit - Some peace activists called some Canadian politicians Nazis and got shut down.

    Which is what I believe the Tucker offensive is about. Or it might just be a defensive reaction against the negative response.

    By the way, there was a book called Darwin's Doubt - by a guy called Meyer, which offered support for intelligent design...came out a few months ago and was soaring..before the NY Times and everyone jumped on it with hobnailed boots.

    So maybe this is a counter offensive from the powers that be - hence the repeated emphasis in so many places of the term,"gorilla."