Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

mardi, 04 novembre 2014

Nouvelle revue d'histoire n°75

NRH 75.jpg

 

La Nouvelle Revue d'Histoire est en kiosque

(n° 75, novembre - décembre 2014).

 

Le dossier central est consacré à l'impôt, à sa perception par l'état et aux réactions qu'il a pu suscité au fil de l'histoire. On peut y lire, notamment,  des articles de Emma Demeester ("Aux origines de l'impôt royal" ; "La dîme, un impôt millénaire"), de Philippe Conrad ("Soulèvements paysans contre l'impôt" ; "1789 : la tyrannie du fisc" ; "Juillet 1914 : naissance de l'impôt sur le revenu"), de Jean-Joël Brégeon ("Gabelle, faux-sauniers et gabelous"), de Martin Benoist ("La Dîme royale de Vauban"), de Jean Kappel ("Les fermiers généraux"), de Virginie Tanlay ("Napoléon et l'impôt") et de Philippe Parroy ("1953 : Poujade, le rebelle contre le fisc").

 

Hors dossier, on pourra lire, en particulier, deux entretiens, l'un avec Christian Harbulot ("La France détruit sa puissance") et l'autre avec Bernard Lugan ("Atlas des guerres africaines"), ainsi que des articles d'Emma Demeester ("Brantôme, de l'épée à la plume"), d'Henri Levavasseur ("Des Européens aux portes de la Chine"), de Rémy Porte ("1914 : la mêlée des Flandres"), de Tancrède Josseran ("1914 : l'impossible neutralité de l'Empire ottoman") et d'Aude de Kerros ("Conflits autour de l'art abstrait").

Bardèche sur Léon Bloy

 

Anne Brassié recevait le 1 juin 1989 sur Radio Courtoisie Maurice Bardèche, pour son ouvrage sur Léon Bloy, paru aux éditions de La Table Ronde.

Die wirklichen Europäer sind die Russen

url_646.jpg

Die wirklichen Europäer sind die Russen

Vom Gibraltar bis zum Ural - oder wo endet Europa?

Von Eberhard Straub

Beitrag hören: http://www.deutschlandradiokultur.de/amputierter-kontinent-die-wirklichen-europaeer-sind-die.1005.de.html?dram:article_id=294917

Ein Europa, das "nur noch Westen" sein will, gibt sich auf, sagt der Historiker Eberhard Straub. Er warnt davor, Russland ausschließlich als Feind zu sehen. Die Lehre der Geschichte sollte eine andere sein, ist er überzeugt.

Die Einheit Europas zerbrach mit dem Ersten Weltkrieg. Sie war bis 1914 vom Konzert der fünf Großmächte aufrechterhalten worden. Zu dieser friedenstiftenden Staatengesellschaft gehörte ganz selbstverständlich Russland.

Im Gedenken der letzten Wochen beteuerten die Westeuropäer keine "Schlafwandler" mehr sein zu wollen. Viel Schrecken und Elend habe sie klug und weise gemacht, um nunmehr friedlich im wieder geeinten Europa zu leben - als der besten aller Welten. Von Russland war und ist dabei erstaunlicherweise nicht die Rede.

Immerhin kämpfte es unter großen Opfern als Verbündeter Englands und Frankreichs, um das Reich der Finsternis, damals das Deutsche Reich, daran zu hindern, das Licht der Freiheit in Europa zu ersticken. Es wurde als Mitglied der westlichen Wertegemeinschaft gefeiert, wie sonst nur noch einmal, als die Westmächte im verbündeten Stalin den russischen Lincoln würdigten, der alle Entrechteten befreit und ihre Menschenwürde ein für alle Male sichert.

Ausgerechnet Stalin! Aber davon möchten sie heute nichts mehr wissen, nicht an gemeinsame, unübersichtliche Vergangenheiten erinnert werden. Nichts mehr davon, dass Russland dazu verhalf, zwei Male sich siegreich zu behaupten und schließlich 1989 die Spaltung Europas in Ost und West zu überwinden.

Fernes, fremdes Reich des erlösungsbedürftigen Ostens

Dieses Russland, das mehrfach europäische Verantwortung getragen hat, ist nun wieder - wie 1917 oder 1947 - die antiwestliche Macht und damit der Feind schlechthin.

Es bleibt für Westler eben ein fremdes, fernes Reich des erlösungsbedürftigen Ostens, das seine Bewohner daran hindert, endlich Mensch zu werden, zum Wohlstand ebenso aufzuschließen wie zur Aufklärung, den Obrigkeitsstaat abzuschütteln. Selbst dessen Härte und Terror war keine russische Erfindung

So wurde der Kommunismus als genuin europäische und sehr deutsche Idee eingeführt, mit aller Kraft und viel Gewalt die Europäisierung Russlands zu vollenden. Schon vorher sind es französische Revolutionäre gewesen, welche die erstaunten Europäer – unter ihnen Russen – mit Schreckensherrschaft bekannt machten. Und nur mit russischer Hilfe gelang es nach langen Kriegen die französische Vormacht zu beenden.

1814 war Russland der Befreier. Damals gab es noch die Vorstellung eines Europa von Gibraltar bis zum Ural. Deshalb kam es auf dem Wiener Kongress zu einer europäischen Friedensordnung. Sie ging nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg unter, weil die westlichen Sieger kein Interesse mehr an ihr hatten.

galabolchoi1_badenbaden.jpgUrkatastrophe des alten Kontinents - Europa verlor sich

Sie schwärmten vom Westen, vom transatlantischen Bündnis unter Führung der USA. Damals verlor sich Europa, das seither überhaupt keine Vorstellung mehr davon hat, was es sein kann und will. Das ist die Urkatastrophe des alten Kontinents, wenn dies keine Redensart sein soll.

Ohne Russland ist Europa unvollständig, nicht geeint. Wenn es nur noch Westen sein will, gibt es sich auf. Davor möchte das europäische Russland das übrige Europa bewahren. Die wirklichen Europäer sind die Russen - wie 1814.

Denn sie halten weiterhin an dem überlieferten Grundsatz fest, das Übergewicht einer Macht zu verhindern. Darauf beruhte stets die Balance mehrerer, unterschiedlich verfasster Staaten in Europa, früher von der Sowjetunion auch "friedliche Koexistenz" genannt. Ohne Not haben sich die Staaten der EU von diesem Konzept verabschiedet.

Eberhard Straub, geboren 1940, studierte Geschichte, Kunstgeschichte und Archäologie. Der habilitierte Historiker war bis 1986 Feuilletonredakteur der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung und bis 1997 Pressereferent des Stifterverbandes für die Deutsche Wissenschaft. Heute lebt er als freier Journalist in Berlin. Buchveröffentlichungen u.a.: "Die Wittelsbacher", "Drei letzte Kaiser", "Das zerbrechliche Glück. Liebe und Ehe im Wandel der Zeit" und "Zur Tyrannei der Werte".

Kamen die Kelten bis nach Amerika?

Chachapoyas2.jpg

Kamen die Kelten bis nach Amerika?

von FOCUS-Online-Autor

Ex: http://www.focus.de

In der Antike segelten Mittelmeerbewohner über den Atlantik und ließen sich in den Anden nieder – sagt der Forscher Hans Giffhorn und präsentiert eine Fülle von Indizien. Doch andere Wissenschaftler sind skeptisch.

Christoph Kolumbus war nicht der Erste, der von Europa nach Amerika segelte. Spätestens seit Archäologen vor einigen Jahrzehnten die Siedlung L’Anse aux Meadows an der Nordspitze Neufundlands ausgruben und damit eine alte isländische Saga bestätigten, war klar: Die Wikinger hatten den Atlantik bereits 500 Jahre vor dem italienischen Seefahrer überquert und sich zumindest für kurze Zeit in der „Neuen Welt“ niedergelassen.

Uneinig sind sich Historiker und Archäologen allerdings, ob noch anderen der Sprung über den Ozean gelungen sein könnte – möglicherweise lange bevor die Nordmänner zu ihren Entdeckungsfahrten aufbrachen. Dem irischen Mönch Brendan vielleicht, der – wie eine im Mittelalter weit verbreitete Erzählung berichtet – eine Insel weit im Westen gefunden haben soll? Muslimischen Seefahrern oder zuvor schon Griechen, Römern oder den Alten Ägyptern? „Eine Zeit lang hatten solche Ideen Konjunktur, doch inzwischen werden sie weniger und auch kritischer diskutiert“, sagt Ronald Bockius, Experte für antike Schifffahrt am Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum in Mainz.

Hochentwickelte Kultur am Ostrand der Anden


Kann nun ein neues Buchder Diskussion wieder Auftrieb geben? „Wurde Amerika in der Antike entdeckt?“ lautet sein Titel, verfasst von dem deutschen Kulturwissenschaftler Hans Giffhorn. Darin entwirft er das Szenario, karthagische Seeleute hätten im 2. Jahrhundert vor Christus zusammen mit keltischen Kriegern und Söldnern aus Mallorca den Atlantik überquert. Ziel sei es gewesen, den Römern, die damals die rivalisierende Metropole Karthago in Nordafrika zerstörten, zu entkommen. Ebenfalls per Schiff hätten die Flüchtlinge anschließend das Amazonas-Gebiet durchquert und zuletzt im Nordosten des heutigen Perus eine neue Kultur begründet: die der Chachapoya.

Bis heute wissen Forscher nur wenig über das Volk, das einst am Ostrand der Anden siedelte. Um 800 nach Christus – so der bisherige Kenntnisstand – tauchten die Chachapoya aus dem Dunkel der Geschichte auf. Die Überreste einer riesigen Stadt, eine mächtige Festung mit 15 Meter hohen Mauern, Sarkophage und Mumienfunde zeugen von einer hochentwickelten Kultur. „Nebelwaldmenschen“ nannten die Inka die Chachapoya, die angeblich sehr kriegerisch waren – trotzdem mussten sie sich im 15. Jahrhundert der neuen Großmacht geschlagen geben. Die Überlebenden verbündeten sich später mit den Spaniern und halfen ihnen, das Inkareich zu zerstören. Doch es half ihnen nichts: Ihre Freiheit erlangten sie nicht zurück, stattdessen gingen sie an aus Europa eingeschleppten Krankheiten zugrunde.
 

chachapoyas-034-copie-1.jpg


Europäische Stammväter eines Indiovolks?


Können antike Kelten und Karthager wirklich die Stammväter dieses rätselhaften Andenvolks sein – auf einem anderen Kontinent, rund 9000 Kilometer entfernt? Auf den ersten Blick klingt das nach einem phantastischen Konstrukt à la Erich von Däniken. „Früher war ich auch der Meinung, eine solches Szenario sei vollkommen unrealistisch“, sagt Giffhorn. „Aber mittlerweile – nach vierzehnjähriger Forschung zu dem Thema – halte ich es für die plausibelste Erklärung zahlloser bislang rätselhafter Phänomene.“

Bei seinen vielen Reisen sei ihm zum Beispiel aufgefallen, wie sehr die Rundbauten der Chachapoya den Überresten keltischer Wohnhäuser im nordwestlichen Spanien glichen, sagt Giffhorn. Kaum ein anderes Indiovolk habe auf diese Weise gebaut. Auch seien die Chachapoya wie die Kelten Kopfjäger gewesen. Und die kriegerischen Andenbewohner hätten mit Steinschleudern genau wie die Bewohner Mallorcas gekämpft – um nur einige Indizien zu nennen, die der Kulturwissenschaftler zur Untermauerung seiner These anführt.
 

kuelap-as-it-was.jpg

 
 

Chachapoya of Peru Are Probably Carthaginians and Celts Who Fled from Rome in 146 BCE

PBS: Chachapoya of Peru Are Probably Carthaginians and Celts Who Fled from Rome in 146 BCE

Ex: http://www.jasoncolavito.com 
 
See also: ARTE's Broadcasting: http://www.arte.tv/guide/de/048610-000/karthagos-vergessene-krieger
 
9783406645204_large.jpgHoly crap! PBS has become America Unearthed. In an episode of the PBS series Secrets of the Dead running on local PBS stations this week and available online for streaming, the venerable public broadcasting channel asserts that blonde-haired, blue-eyed Celts and also some incidental Carthaginians discovered the Americas in Antiquity. (The blue eyes don’t make the show but show up on the show’s web page.) “Carthage’s Lost Warriors” was produced by ZDF, a German television production company associated with the long-running series Terra-X, which traffics in all manner of fringe theories, and the large number of dubbed German interviews testifies to the recycling of a German program. Archaeologist K. Krist Hurst called the show “baloney.”
 
The show opens with a “Celtic-style bronze axed” found “deep in the Amazon” and the narrator, Jay O. Sanders, asks if—heaven help us!—the Chachapoya are truly the blond, Caucasian descendants of prehistoric superhero warriors (martial prowess specified explicitly) who crossed the Atlantic at some unspecified date to penetrate the continent with their manly thrusts until they fertilized Peru with the glory of Old World culture.

The program is based on the work of the show’s chief expert, Hans Giffhorn, a professor emeritus of cultural studies at the Universities of Göttingen and Hildesheim and documentary filmmaker. Griffhorn’s dissertation on aesthetics outlined his belief that science is dogmatic and rigid and excludes evidence and theories that fail to conform to paradigms, and that a lack of cross-disciplinary interaction has led to erroneous findings and conclusions.

Griffhorn wrote a German book, still untranslated, on his belief that the Chachapoya are white Europeans in 2013.He believes that the Carthaginians did not “simply vanish” after the Carthaginians were defeated by the Romans in 146 BCE, and he refuses to believe Roman accounts that the city’s population was enslaved or killed under Scipio Aemilianus. He wants to know where they went. To find the Carthaginians—and here he is looking for just one boatload—he starts at the Balearic Islands, where Carthage found its fiercest soldiers. Giffhorn feels that the Carthaginians were not enslaved in their entirety, so for him it is only logical that they fled to Kuelap, the Chachapoya fortress in Peru. He believes that in the western Mediterranean the Carthaginian exiles teamed up with Celtic people from Iberia to escape the Romans, who were also taking over the Carthaginian territories of what is today Spain.

Celtic prowess combined with Carthaginian sailing skills to cross the Atlantic.

culture-civilisation-chachapoyas-266x280.pngGriffhorn believes the Diodorus Siculus proves that the Carthaginians reached the Americas. Diodorus (Library of History 5.19-20) first describes an island, not a continent, “over against Libya”—meaning off the African coast—and states that it contains stately towns and fruitful plains when the Phoenicians discovered it:
The Phoenicians therefore, upon the account before related, having found out the coasts beyond the pillars, and sailing along by the shore of Africa, were on a sudden driven by a furious storm afar off into the main ocean; and after they had lain under this violent tempest for many days, they at length arrived at this island; and so, coming to the knowledge of the nature and pleasantness of this isle, they caused it to be known to everyone; and therefore the Tyrrhenians, when they were masters at sea, designed to send a colony thither; but the Carthaginians opposed them, both fearing lest most of their own citizens should be allured through the goodness of the island to settle there, and likewise intending to keep it as a place of refuge for themselves, in case of any sudden and unexpected blasts of fortune, which might tend to the utter ruin of their government: for, being then potent at sea, they doubted not but they could easily transport themselves and their families into that island unknown to the conquerors. (trans. G. Booth)
ubicacion chachapoyas.GIFHe, of course, leaves out the information Diodorus—and, crucially, pseudo-Aristotle three centuries earlier, unacknowledged here—gave about the location of this mysterious island, which regular readers will of course remember quite well from when these same texts were used by Harry Hubbard to claim ancient knowledge of North America, and also from America Unearthed, when Mark McMenamin used the same text from Diodorus to claim that the Phoenicians, not the Carthaginians, discovered America.

Pseudo-Aristotle (De mirabilis auscultationibus 84) writes that:
In the sea outside the Pillars of Hercules they say that an island was discovered by the Carthaginians, desolate, having wood of every kind, and navigable rivers, and admirable for its fruits besides, but distant several days’ voyage from them. But, when the Carthaginians often came to this island because of its fertility, and some even dwelt there, the magistrates of the Carthaginians gave notice that they would punish with death those who should sail to it, and destroyed all the inhabitants, lest they should spread a report about it, or a large number might gather together to the island in their time, get possession of the authority, and destroy the prosperity of the Carthaginians. (trans. Launcelot D. Dowdall)
This land was in frequent contact with Carthage before 300 BCE—not a one-time chance encounter in 146 BCE—and was only a few days’ sail from the Pillars. Brazil is about ninety days’ sail from the Pillars, according to the show’s own estimate. It’s a bit of a difference between three months and a few days.

Griffhorn suggests from such texts that the Carthaginians had had secret communication with Brazil but kept it secret. This seems rather odd considering that the Carthaginians put up in the public square a commemoration of the voyage of Hanno to central Africa, where he saw chimpanzees. Surely they would have kept that secret, too, had that been their typical practice, as Griffhorn suggests.

At this point, the Carthaginians virtually vanish from the show because they were needed solely to give the Celts something they lack—ships—for Griffhorn’s real thesis, that the Celts are the ancestors of the Chachapoya and once reigned over South America.
 

perou29112013-2.jpg



The program tries to make the case that a boat could have crossed to Brazil using the ocean currents. Griffhorn places the discovery of Brazil by the Carthaginians and Celts at “1500 years before Columbus,” which would be about 10 BCE, long after the fall of Carthage. This makes no sense since Diodorus wrote between two and five decades earlier and pseudo-Aristotle three centuries before that—and both claimed the story reported much older events.

Griffhorn believes that the Carthaginian boat pilots traded with local cannibals (with what?) to survive, and Griffhorn believes that four symbols on the ancient petroglyphs on the rock of Ingá in Brazil aren’t just coincidentally close to geometrical shapes used in Celtiberian alphabets but are actual Celtic letters. Apparently the Carthaginian merchants were the merchant class serving the Celtic warrior elite.

Based on no evidence whatsoever, Griffhorn suggests that the Carthaginians and Celts on this voyage of discovery sailed up the Amazon. “No account exists, and we can only imagine” what they did, the narrator says, substituting early Spanish and Portuguese accounts to give an idea of what the Carthaginians “would have” seen and done. So, to recap: Everyone admits that no evidence exists, but they will nevertheless reconstruct an entire adventure based on analogies.

The narrator suggests that brightly-colored vases with geometric patterns made by the Marajoara culture of Brazil are “reminiscent” of Greek vases from the Classical period, decorated with Celtic spirals. This is a subjective judgment, and to my eyes the pots look nothing like the form of actual Greek vases, nor do the decorations bear more than a superficial resemblance to Old World patterns—no more so than any other Native geometric art. Geometric shapes tend to be the same everywhere. The trouble is that the Marajoara culture flourished after 800 CE, far too late to have anything to do with Mediterranean Greek vases from 1,000 years earlier.

We return to the metal axe from the opening that the show calls Celtic. It has no provenance, and was purchased from a merchant who said he found it in the jungle. The metal part of the axe is copper-zinc bronze, meaning that it was from the Old World, but the handle was made of Paraguayan wood. According to tests that the show says were run on the axe, the wood is 1500 years old. The most parsimonious explanation is that a Spanish, Portuguese, or African object was added to a sacred and ancient handle during the Contact period, but instead the show wants us to believe that Celts from 146 BCE dropped it en route to Peru where it was reused in 500 CE.

This brings us to the Chachapoya, and the show demands to know how mere Native people could possibly have learned how to build buildings, particularly round ones, without European help. Prof. Warren Church explains that the Chachapoya were quite able to build their own buildings, of which none date earlier than 500 CE. Griffhorn, however, sees the round buildings as unique in America and therefore of obviously Carthaginian extraction—700 years or more after the fact! He points to a carving of a face on a temple wall and says this is reminiscent of Celtic beheadings, as though no one else on earth ever drew faces or beheaded enemies. He also cites trepanation among the Celts and Chachapoya as another “connection.” Michael Schultz, a paleopathologist, makes an astonishing claim: that “Hippocratic accounts” from 500 BCE describe Chachapoyan trepanation! This is entirely untrue, and I have no idea where he got the idea that the Chachapoya were discussed in Greek literature.
 

kuelap-chachapoyas-amazonas-pérou-16205629.jpg



Griffhorn believes that Spanish fortresses that are round must be connected to the Chachapoya’s round houses, even though this is about all they share in common. The show picks out painted images of shamans with antlers in both the Amazon and among the Celts and decides this must be a connection—even though, unacknowledged here, art from Mohenjo-Daro shows the same thing, as, in fact, does shamanic art everywhere, going back to the Stone Age.

This is really going nowhere fast.

Schultz returns again to assert that pre-Contact Chachapoya mummies suffered from tuberculosis, a disease previously thought only to have come with the Spanish. This “new” fact, however, has been known since 2002, and the presence of tuberculosis in the pre-Columbian Americas has been known since 1994—it’s been found beyond just the Chachapoya—but Griffhorn takes this as a revelation that the Carthaginians brought “Classical” tuberculosis (whatever that means—he seems to think the disease was different in Antiquity) with them in 146 BCE, where it lay dormant for a thousand years. Archaeologists suggest that the disease arose from llamas, who are known to carry the bovine form of tuberculosis—or even from the Polynesians who reached South America before Columbus.

Next, various Chachapoyan traits are compared to Spanish, Majorcan, and other cultures from various time periods, as though the Chachapoyans simply adopted one trait from each of the ark of cross-cultural European outcasts from multiple time periods who sailed up the Amazon to meet them.
 

sommersprossiger-chachapoya-junger.jpg



The show points to the fair-skinned, blonde-haired Chachapoyan descendants as evidence that that some Chachapoyans are “distinctive” from the “dark haired” and “brown-skinned” Natives, and we hear what Cieza de Leon had to say about this, though the paraphrase offered by Warren Church sounds to me like he’s running together bits and pieces from both Cieza de Leon and from Pedro Pizarro, who famously wrote:
The Indian women of the Guancas and Chachapoyas and Cañares were the common women, most of them being beautiful. The rest of the womanhood of this kingdom were thick, neither beautiful nor ugly, but of medium good-looks. The people of this kingdom of Peru were white, swarthy in colour, and among them the Lords and Ladies were whiter than Spaniards. I saw in this land an Indian woman and a child who would not stand out among white blonds. These people [of the upper class] say that they were the children of the idols. (Relation of the Discoveries etc., trans. Philip Ainsworth Means, p. 430)
By contrast, Cieza de Leon (Chronicle of Peru 1.78) was rather less expansive on the particulars:
These Indians of Chachapoyas are the most fair and good-looking of any that I have seen in the Indies, and their women are so beautiful that many of them were worthy to be wives of the Yncas, or inmates of the temples of the sun. To this day the Indian women of this race are exceedingly beautiful, for they are fair and well formed. They go dressed in woollen cloths, like their husbands, and on their heads they wear a certain fringe, the sign by which they may be known in all parts. After they were subjugated by the Yncas, they received the laws and customs according to which they lived, from them. They adored the sun and other gods, like the rest of the Indians, and resembled them in other customs, such as the burial of their dead and conversing with the devil. (trans. Clements Markham)
Rather than put this down to indigenous genetic diversity (which the show briefly acknowledges as possible), the show suggests that this is due to Old World contact. The Carthaginians not being known to be blondes, I guess this is why Griffhorn proposes Celts, whose presumed red hair he wants to equate with reports of fair hair. German geneticist Manfred Kayser tests some Chachapoya hair and finds that the living individuals have some European ancestry tracing back to the Celtic areas of northern Spain, but at this point—500 years after Contact—it’s not possible to determine when the genes mixed. The homeland of the Celtic people Griffhorn fingers is the same as that of the Spanish who traveled to Peru in the 1500s; the Celts didn’t simply vanish after the Roman conquest of Spain (218 BCE to 19 BCE) but contributed to the gene pool of medieval and modern Spain, though the language and culture died out around the fifth century CE. No ancient Chachapoyan mummies were tested, which is a major omission.

The show concludes that there is no “smoking gun,” only suggestive indications that the Chachapoya are not really Native Americans on the same stripe as the brown ones but owe their culture, their art, their religion, and their very genes to a boatload of Carthaginians and Celts who sailed up the Amazon in 146 BCE and, by dint of their superior European prowess, took over to such an extent that their potent DNA still rules the region 1,868 years later, largely undiluted by the intervening centuries.

I guess this means that they’re all inbred, but the show doesn’t go there.

This was really terrible, and the only significant difference between this show and America Unearthed in terms of quality of evidence and the desire to find hidden white people in the Americas is that this show searched South America rather than North America, and its hero never claimed that there was a conspiracy trying to suppress his work.

Kerry Bolton’s The Banking Swindle

Kerry Bolton’s The Banking Swindle

By Eugène Montsalvat 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

bankingswindle-187x300.jpgKerry Bolton
The Banking Swindle: Money Creation and the State [2]
Black House Publishing, 2013

Kerry Bolton’s The Banking Swindle is a great introduction to the economics of the true Right, which aligns itself against the forces of usury. The topic of economics is quite neglected in the discourse of the modern Right, especially in the Anglosphere. Concerns about race, immigration, multiculturalism, or historical revisionism consume far more ink than the question of money, however behind all of these issues lies money power. Indeed Bolton refers to its paramount importance:

No other policy of the Right, in whatever part of the world, is possible without the need to first secure the economic and financial sovereignty of the state, and this can only be achieved when the State or Crown assumes the prerogative over banking and credit creation. The bottom line is that no State- and hence people- are truly free while any decisions that are made can be undermined and wrecked by decisions made in the boardrooms of global corporations, by the fluctuations of the world stock market, and by the power of bankers to turn off the credit supply if a state pursues policies not in the interest of the plutocracy… All other issues, including the Right’s now usually be-all issue of race and immigration, are secondary, and no Rightist government could implement Rightist policies until the sovereignty of credit creation is achieved.

The system of interest finance allows bankers to create money out of nothing and loan it at interest, which must be repaid with real production. As Gottfried Feder and Dietrich Eckart stated in their pamphlet, To All Working People, “Interest has to come from somewhere after all, somewhere these billions and more billions have to be produced by hard labour! Who does this? You do it, nobody but you! That’s right, it is your money, hard earned through care and sorrow, which is as if magnetically drawn into the coffers of these insatiable people . . .” Thus entire nations can be bound by debt and their physical assets seized to pay off the creditors who created their debt. Hence we see nations like Greece enduring austerity regimes, where the services are cut and the nation’s assets sold, to ensure that the bondholders do not lose their money. Over and over again people are told to tighten their belts, cut spending, and do without, in order to keep the financial system afloat. Yet during the Great Depression, alternatives to this system were popular and were advocated by nationalist and anti-liberal movements. Bolton illuminates this forgotten chapter in economic history.

Before addressing the various alternatives to the debt finance system, Bolton briefly discusses its history. He notes that while usury dates back to Mesopotamian times, with Babylon’s loans of seed-corn, the modern system of international finance, based out of the city of London, yet loyal only to profit, emerged with the expansion of commerce Age of Exploration and the weakened position of the anti-usury Catholic Church following the Reformation. The victory of the mercantile forces of Oliver Cromwell over the agricultural, feudal interests of Charles I in the English Civil War paved the way for financial domination. Cromwell maintained good relations with Dutch, Sephardic Jewish, and Huguenot merchants, paving the way for London to become the major financial centre in Europe.

The so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688 sealed this result, with the Catholic King James II deposed and replaced with the Dutch Protestant William III, who had borrowed heavily from Amsterdam’s banks to fight his wars. Under William II the Bank of England was chartered, establishing a private bank with the purpose of lending the throne money at interest. From 1700 to 1815, the national debt of Britain grew from 12 million pounds to 850 million, funded by this bank.

The Rothschild family, originally from Frankfort and branching out to Paris, Naples, Vienna, and London, became involved in the English struggle against Napoleon under Nathan Rothschild, utilizing their international network to gather information. It is necessary to note that Napoleon’s economic system sought to achieve autarky and the Bank of France limited dividends and extended credit at low interest rates to aid manufacturers rather than leave them indebted. A victory for Napoleon would have meant a tremendous loss for the forces of finance. The victory of the British Empire and its global expansion allowed the Rothschild family to extend their influence.

Nathan’s grandson “Natty” Rothschild cultivated links with imperialist Cecil Rhodes. But Rothschild was not a British imperialist for the sake of Britain, indeed he extended loans to the anti-British Boer government in 1892, much to displeasure of Rhodes. Rothschild simply saw the British Empire as the safest means of supporting commerce. As colonial expansion slowed, they adopted an internationalist line, abandoning the antiquated Empire that now served as a barrier to free trade, forging links with New York and Tokyo following the Second World War.

In recent history, it was the events of the Great Depression awakened many to the flaws of the interest finance system. The Federal Reserve, the private bank that controls the United States’ money supply, called in the loans from its 12 regional branches, who in turn financed the various local banks of the country, at the end of this transaction the ordinary debtor was forced to pay or face foreclosure. In the midst of this crisis, farmers were ordered to destroy stockpiles of food that couldn’t be purchased for lack of funds, while people went hungry. Unlike today, the people and their political leaders did not blindly follow the solutions offered by the same people who caused the problem, rather they sought out alternatives to usury. The interrelated concepts of state credit and social credit found widespread popular support.

The idea of state credit pre-dates the concept of social credit, which was codified by Major C. H. Douglas in the 1920s and 1930s. In a state credit system, the state prints its own money and uses it to purchase goods and services or loans it to producers at zero or minimal interest, rather than borrowing money from creditors at interest and having the people of the state work to pay the interest on these outside loans.

One early example of state credit was seen in Quebec in 1685, when the colony failed to receive funding from the crown. The Intendant of the Province, Monsieur de Meulle, faced with the inability to pay his troops, and having no ability to borrow money nor a press to print it, simply collected playing cards, cut them up, and used them as currency in the place of outside funds. This action saved the French crown 13,000 livres. The cards acted as scrip: arbitrary objects such as paper or tokens that serve as legal tender.

Scrip was used on the British Isle of Guernsey in 1820, when the state could neither secure outside loans nor increase taxes to raise the funds need to maintain and improve the local infrastructure. To deal with the situation the state issued 6,000 pounds worth of State Notes, which were used to pay for needed improvements on the island. While the idea of a state printing its own money and using it to pay for goods and services directly is dismissed as “funny money,” the Isle of Guernsey subsequently prospered from the creation of debt free currency. The only difference between this alleged “funny money” and regular money was that it was not created at a usurious interest by a private bank.

In the turbulent years of the Weimar Republic, when hyperinflation effected the value of the Mark, the Wära, issued by the Wära Barter Company, was notable example of economically successful scrip. Following the Great Depression in 1929, the employees of Hebecker in the village of Schwanenkirchen were paid in Wära, which the villagers accepted as valid currency. The resulting success in Schwanenkirchen was described as miraculous in the press and eventually 2000 corporations accepted it until it was banned in 1931. In the Austrian town of Woergl a similar to the Wära was implemented, where the mayor’s Local Relief Commission issued stamps to serve as scrip, which paid for new public works programs, which dropped unemployment. The Woergl stamp scrip was outlawed in 1933.

In the English-speaking countries, the events of the Great Depression fuelled interest in alternatives to the debt finance system, particularly the Social Credit system of Canada’s Major C. H. Douglas. The basic premise of the system is that the amount of money in circulation is never equal to the amount needed to consume the whole of what is produced. This is demonstrated by the “A+B Theorem.” Let A be the amount a producer pays his employees, and let B be the amount a producer spends on outside payments. The minimum amount needed to sustain the producer is the sum, A+B, however only A has purchasing power. Thus B is really a shortfall of purchasing power. To address the shortfall in purchasing power, Douglas proposed a “National Dividend,” paid by the state to the people, issued not as debt to be repaid, but as the birthright of the citizen.

A prominent exponent of this idea was the American poet Ezra Pound, who saw Italian Fascism as a vehicle for Social Credit. In New Zealand the poet Rex Fairburn adopted the ideas of Social Credit as well. Douglas’ tour of New Zealand also inspired Campbell Begg’s New Zealand Legion, which at one timed amassed 20,000 members. In Great Britain, the Green Shirts, an organization descended from the Anglo-Saxon and Medieval inspired Kibbo Kift scouting movement, rallied the unemployed and hungry to the idea of Social Credit. In 1936, Green Shirts founder John Hargrave was appointed an advisor to a Social Credit government in Alberta, Canada. However, the central government foiled attempts at properly implementing the system. W. K. A. J. Chambers-Hunter supported Social Credit ideas in Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, under the premise that “British credit shall be used for British purposes.” In Canada, a Catholic organization called the Pilgrims of St. Michael, founded in 1935 by Louis Even and still extant, emphasized Social Credit as an alternative to the sinful usury based finance system.

Yet there was another Catholic crusader against usury that influenced the Pilgrims of St. Michael. In America, Canadian-born Father Charles Coughlin, the host of a popular Roman Catholic radio show for children, addressed their parents on broadcast on the issue of money, his well-received attack on usury lead to the creation of the Radio League of the Little Flower. By 1932 he had an audience of up to 45 million listeners. Originally a proponent of the New Deal, Coughlin broke with Roosevelt and created the National Union for Social Justice, which distributed his paper Social Justice. He demanded the abolition of private banking and returning the ability to print and regulate the money supply to Congress, in place of the Federal Reserve. However increasing opposition in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and changes in radio regulations caused by the outbreak of World War II forced Coughlin to cease broadcasting in 1940 and in 1942 Social Justice was banned from the US mail.

While much of the popular outrage over the injustices of the debt-finance system died with World War II, it resulted in concrete political changes in several countries. Long before the Great Depression, the Australian Labour politician King O’Malley identified the banking system as the root of the common man’s misery stating, “The present banking system was founded on the idea that the many were created for the few to prey on. Debts are contracted for land, labour, products, and other commodities. When interest rises government bonds depreciate, holders sell to secure ready money to benefit by rise in interest. High rates of interest rapidly increase the indebtedness of the people.”

His proposed solution was the creation of a Commonwealth Bank that would serve as a national bank of the issue of currency without resorting to usury. Eventually, after much struggle, the Commonwealth Bank was instituted as a state-owned, but commercial bank, and it failed to issue state credit, however it’s first governor didn’t use private capital to fund the bank and was able to fund Australia’s government without imposing usurious interest upon the nation.

In the First World War, while other nations were paying 6% on their debt, the Commonwealth Bank only charged 1%, sparing Australia the ensuing economic turmoil. Until 1924, the Commonwealth Bank financed the construction of homes, roads, railways, and other forms of infrastructure at minimum charge, resulting in great prosperity. Yet in 1924, private interests took control of the governing directorate, and this came to an end.

Another political success in the Oceania was the New Zealand’s state housing program funded by the state credit from the Reserve Bank. This project reduced unemployment in the depths of the Great Depression. An initial 5 million pounds of state credit were issued, at minimal interest, without the backing of any other private financial institution. While the state housing project is widely lauded, the unorthodox method of its financing is barely commented upon in history books. The Banking Swindle does tremendous service to financial history by recounting the success of what is far too often dismissed as “funny money.”

The pivotal figure in the struggle for state credit in New Zealand was John A. Lee, a socialist influenced by the ideas of Social Credit, who outlined his vision in Money Power for the People. He stated, “that winning complete financial power as the first move toward a new social order,” realizing that state owned interests would be powerless if they depended upon private or foreign financing, which could be manipulated to produce detrimental effects on New Zealand’s people. This lesson has been lost upon many of the self-proclaimed socialist governments of the world, like Greece, whose socialist government borrowed millions from foreign investors only have austerity forced upon it by these usurers.

The principle of freedom from the chains of international finance appealed to the nationalists of the era as well, as noted by the BUF’s endorsement of “British Credit for British purposes.” One of the founding principles of the German Worker’s Party, which later become the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, was to break the bondage of interest. The primary economic mind behind them was Gottfried Feder, a founding member of the German Worker’s Party. Recognizing that interest gave money a power to reproduce itself at a cost to productive labour, Feder advocated the abolishment of income earned without physical or intellectual labour, a concept enshrined as the 11th point of the NSDAP. While the Marxists focused their ire on private property, Feder stated that “you never hear a word about, never a syllable, and there is nothing in the world which is such a curse on humanity! I mean loan capital!” Following the National Socialist assumption of power state credit was used to fund public works projects and the interest rates were limited by law. Hitler himself remarked:

All thoughts of gold reserves and foreign exchange fade before the industry and efficiency of well-planned national productive resources. We can smile today at an age when economists were seriously of the opinion that the value of currency was determined by the reserves of gold and foreign exchange lying in the vaults of the national banks and, above all, was guaranteed by them. Instead of that we have learned to realize that the value of a currency lies in a nation’s power of production, that an increasing volume of production sustains a currency, and could possibly raise its value, whereas a decreasing production must, sooner or later, lead to a compulsory devaluation.

In the realm of international trade, Germany directly bartered their surplus commodities for the commodities of other nations, avoiding the financial system’s commodity exchanges. Through a policy of economic self-sufficiency, above all avoiding the credit market’s snares, German was able to create full employment for its people. Henry C. K. Liu, a modern economist stated, “through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began . . . While this observation is not an endorsement for Nazi philosophy, the effectiveness of German economic policy in this period, some of which had been started during the last phase of the Weimar Republic, is undeniable.”

Furthermore, Germany’s Axis partners also pursued nationalist alternatives to the global financial system. In 1932 the Bank of Japan was reorganised as a state bank, issuing credit based solely on the needs of Japanese producers. From 1931–1941, Japanese industrial production rose 136% and the national income grew 241%. In Italy the state assumed control over the major banks through the Instituto Mobiliare Italiano in 1931. In 1936 Banking Law made the Bank of Italy the only bank for lending credit to other banks, removed limits on state borrowing, and removed Italy from the gold standard. Moreover it declared that the issuing of credit must serve the public. The Italian Social Republic took the ideas of profit sharing and worker co-management further during its short existence from 1943–1945, actively seeking to involve the common man in the control of industry with a program developed by former Communist Nicola Bombacci.

With the defeat of the Axis and the subsequent Cold War, Rightism, which had previously opposed liberalism in the economic as well as social spheres, became synonymous with Anglo-American free market policies, which played into the hands of debt finance. In regards to the origins of this supposed Capitalist versus Communist clash, Bolton also makes it clear that the Bolshevik revolution was welcomed by American financiers such as Jacob H. Schiff and John B. Young. Schiff himself financed The Friends of Russian Freedom, which spread revolutionary propaganda to Russian prisoners of war during the Russo-Japanese War.

The true reason for the financiers’ enmity against the Tsar was Russia’s refusal to cede sovereignty over its economy. The State Bank of the Russian Empire was under the control of the Ministry of Finance and it extended credit at minimal interest to Russian producers. Russia possessed large reserves of gold itself, so it had no need to borrow from the outside. For the most part the Tsarist economy was autarchic, beyond the grasp of international finance.

Against this false opposition between equally destructive ideologies of capitalism and communism, which have at their root atomized materialism, the real right stands for the superiority of spiritual values over profits. Bolton approvingly quotes Tsarist apologist George Knupffer, “We would feel certain that all of those who put the spirit above things material, duty above greed and love above hate and envy are in the camp of the Organic Right.” A fundamental premise of the economics of the true right must be the subordination of money to a higher cause, cultural good of a people. The people should not work to earn money to maintain their humdrum lives as cogs in the machinery of debt-finance, they should work for their greater glory. Communism and Capitalism are two sides of the same materialistic coin. As Spengler noted:

The concepts of Liberalism and Socialism are set in effective motion only by money. It was the Equites, the big-money party, which made Tiberius Gracchus’ popular movement possible at all; and as soon as that part of the reforms that were advantageous to themselves had been successfully legalized, they withdrew and the movement collapsed.

There is no proletarian, not even a communist, movement that has not operated in the interests of money, in the directions indicated by money, and for the time permitted by money — and that without the idealist amongst its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.

Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries there were movements that fought both forms of materialism, as Bolton has chronicled in this book and others. While today’s Right devotes much time to issues of race and immigration, it is necessary to understand the economic origins of this increasingly rootless, atomized world we must fight. The Banking Swindle swerves as an excellent history of the movements that sought to break the bondage of interest and as primer on the true economics of the right. In this dark age of austerity, it illuminates a way forward for the nations under the heel of global finance, and one can only hope that it inspires the actions necessary for their liberation from these golden chains.

 


Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/10/kerry-boltons-the-banking-swindle/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/bankingswindle.jpg

[2] The Banking Swindle: Money Creation and the State: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1908476842/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1908476842&linkCode=as2&tag=countecurrenp-20&linkId=5SQXNAMDU3B6GM3M

00:05 Publié dans Economie, Livre, Livre | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : économie, banques, livre, kerry bolton | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

Why is the world ignoring the revolutionary Kurds in Syria?

Why is the world ignoring the revolutionary Kurds in Syria?

The Guardian

Demonstrators hold flags outside the United Nations European headquarters in Geneva
 
Demonstrators hold flags of Kurdistan and a flag with a portrait of jailed PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan outside the UN headquarters in Geneva. Photograph: Denis Balibouse/Reuters

In 1937, my father volunteered to fight in the International Brigades in defence of the Spanish Republic. A would-be fascist coup had been temporarily halted by a worker’s uprising, spearheaded by anarchists and socialists, and in much of Spain a genuine social revolution ensued, leading to whole cities under directly democratic management, industries under worker control, and the radical empowerment of women.

Spanish revolutionaries hoped to create a vision of a free society that the entire world might follow. Instead, world powers declared a policy of “non-intervention” and maintained a rigorous blockade on the republic, even after Hitler and Mussolini, ostensible signatories, began pouring in troops and weapons to reinforce the fascist side. The result was years of civil war that ended with the suppression of the revolution and some of a bloody century’s bloodiest massacres.

I never thought I would, in my own lifetime, see the same thing happen again.

Obviously, no historical event ever really happens twice. There are a thousand differences between what happened in Spain in 1936 and what is happening in Rojava, the three largely Kurdish provinces of northern Syria, today. But some of the similarities are so striking, and so distressing, that I feel it’s incumbent on me, as someone who grew up in a family whose politics were in many ways defined by the Spanish revolution, to say: we cannot let it end the same way again.

The autonomous region of Rojava, as it exists today, is one of few bright spots – albeit a very bright one – to emerge from the tragedy of the Syrian revolution. Having driven out agents of the Assad regime in 2011, and despite the hostility of almost all of its neighbours, Rojava has not only maintained its independence, but is a remarkable democratic experiment. Popular assemblies have been created as the ultimate decision-making bodies, councils selected with careful ethnic balance (in each municipality, for instance, the top three officers have to include one Kurd, one Arab and one Assyrian or Armenian Christian, and at least one of the three has to be a woman), there are women’s and youth councils, and, in a remarkable echo of the armed Mujeres Libres (Free Women) of Spain, a feminist army, the “YJA Star” militia (the “Union of Free Women”, the star here referring to the ancient Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar), that has carried out a large proportion of the combat operations against the forces of Islamic State.

How can something like this happen and still be almost entirely ignored by the international community, even, largely, by the International left? Mainly, it seems, because the Rojavan revolutionary party, the PYD, works in alliance with Turkey’s Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK), a Marxist guerilla movement that has since the 1970s been engaged in a long war against the Turkish state. Nato, the US and EU officially classify them as a “terrorist” organisation. Meanwhile, leftists largely write them off as Stalinists.

But, in fact, the PKK itself is no longer anything remotely like the old, top-down Leninist party it once was. Its own internal evolution, and the intellectual conversion of its own founder, Abdullah Ocalan, held in a Turkish island prison since 1999, have led it to entirely change its aims and tactics.

The PKK has declared that it no longer even seeks to create a Kurdish state. Instead, inspired in part by the vision of social ecologist and anarchist Murray Bookchin, it has adopted the vision of “libertarian municipalism”, calling for Kurds to create free, self-governing communities, based on principles of direct democracy, that would then come together across national borders – that it is hoped would over time become increasingly meaningless. In this way, they proposed, the Kurdish struggle could become a model for a wordwide movement towards genuine democracy, co-operative economy, and the gradual dissolution of the bureaucratic nation-state.

Since 2005 the PKK, inspired by the strategy of the Zapatista rebels in Chiapas, declared a unilateral ceasefire with the Turkish state and began concentrating their efforts in developing democratic structures in the territories they already controlled. Some have questioned how serious all this really is. Clearly, authoritarian elements remain. But what has happened in Rojava, where the Syrian revolution gave Kurdish radicals the chance to carry out such experiments in a large, contiguous territory, suggests this is anything but window dressing. Councils, assemblies and popular militias have been formed, regime property has been turned over to worker-managed co-operatives – and all despite continual attacks by the extreme rightwing forces of Isis. The results meet any definition of a social revolution. In the Middle East, at least, these efforts have been noticed: particularly after PKK and Rojava forces intervened to successfully fight their way through Isis territory in Iraq to rescue thousands of Yezidi refugees trapped on Mount Sinjar after the local peshmerga fled the field. These actions were widely celebrated in the region, but remarkably received almost no notice in the European or North American press.

Now, Isis has returned, with scores of US-made tanks and heavy artillery taken from Iraqi forces, to take revenge against many of those same revolutionary militias in Kobane, declaring their intention to massacre and enslave – yes, literally enslave – the entire civilian population. Meanwhile, the Turkish army stands at the border preventing reinforcements or ammunition from reaching the defenders, and US planes buzz overhead making occasional, symbolic, pinprick strikes – apparently, just to be able to say that it did not do nothing as a group it claims to be at war with crushes defenders of one of the world’s great democratic experiments.

If there is a parallel today to Franco’s superficially devout, murderous Falangists, who would it be but Isis? If there is a parallel to the Mujeres Libres of Spain, who could it be but the courageous women defending the barricades in Kobane? Is the world – and this time most scandalously of all, the international left – really going to be complicit in letting history repeat itself?