Usury | Ezra Pound

The first thing for a man to think of when proposing an economic system is: WHAT IS IT FOR? And the answer is: to make sure that the whole people shall be able to eat (in a healthy manner), to be housed (decently) and be clothed (in a way adequate to the climate). 

 

 

 

Another form of that statement is Mussolini’s:

DISCIPLINE THE ECONOMIC FORCES AND EQUATE THEM TO THE NEEDS OF THE NATION.

The Left claim that private ownership has destroyed this true purpose of an economic system. Let us see how OWNERSHIP was defined, at the beginning of a capitalist era during the French Revolution.

OWNERSHIP is the right which every citizen has to enjoy and dispose of the portion of goods guaranteed him by the law. The right of ownership is limited, as are all other rights by the obligation to respect the rights of others. It cannot be prejudicial to the safety, nor to the liberty nor to the existence, nor to the ownership of other men like ourselves. Every possession, every traffic, which violates this principle is illicit and immoral.

Robespierre.

 

The perspective of the damned XIXth century shows little else than the violation of these principles by demoliberal usuriocracy. The doctrine of Capital, in short, has shown itself as little else than the idea that unprincipled thieves and antisocial groups should be allowed to gnaw into the rights of ownership. This tendency ‘to gnaw into’ has been recognised and stigmatised from the time of the laws of Moses and he called it neschek. And nothing differs more from this gnawing or corrosive than the right to share out the fruits of a common co-operative labour.

 

Indeed USURY has become the dominant force in the modern world.

 

Moreover, imperialism is an immense accumulation of money capital in a few countries, which, as we have seen, amounts to 4 or 5 thousand million pounds sterling in securities. Hence the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather a Stratum, of rentiers, i.e, persons who live by “clipping coupons” who take absolutely no part in any enterprise, and whose profession is idleness. The exportation of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still further isolates this rentier stratum from production, and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country living on the exploitation of the labour of several overseas countries and colonies.

V. I. Lenin, quoting Hobson in ‘Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism’.

Very well! That is from Lenin. But you could quote the same substance from Hitler, who is a Nazi (note the paragraph from ‘Mein Kampf’ magnificently isolated by Wyndham Lewis in his ‘Hitler’) – ‘The struggle against international finance and loan capital has become the most important point in the National Socialist programme; the struggle of the German nation for its independence and freedom.’

You could quote it from Mussolini, a Fascist, or from C. H. Douglas, who calls himself a democrat and his followers the only true democrats. You could quote it from McNair Wilson who is a Christian Monarchy man. You could quote it from a dozen camps which have no suspicion they are quoting Lenin. The only people who do not seem to have read and digested this essay of his are the British Labour Party and various groups of professing communists throughout the Occident.

Milton Friedman — Lie for hire.

Thomas Piketty — Worse than Jewspapers.

Some facts are now known above parties, some perceptions are the common heritage of all men of good will, and only the Jewspapers and worse than Jewspapers try now to obscure them. Among the worse than Jewspapers we must list the hired professors who misteach new generations of young, who lie for hire and who continue to lie from sheer sloth and inertia and from dog-like contempt for the wellbeing of all mankind. At this point, and to prevent the dragging of red herrings, I wish to distinguish between prejudice against the Jew as such and the suggestion that the Jew should face his own problem.

DOES he in his individual case wish to observe the law of Moses? 

Does he propose to continue to rob other men by usury mechanism while wishing to be considered a ‘neighbour’?

Quoted from:
Ezra Pound (1939) - What is money for?

 

Fed Governors — Prevent the dragging of red herrings.

 

Larry Fink — Considered a ‘neighbour’?

See also:

Neema Parvini (2022) - The Liberal Political Theology.
Stephen Mitford Goodson (2019) - Who Ever Sets the Price of Gold and Silver.

TPR (2014) - Modern Money Mechanics — The Alchemy of Neo-Feudalism.

Asatizah of Al-Munawwar (2013) - The Dazzling Proof for the Return of our pure Money. The Judgment on Fiat Currency.

 Serhii Hrabovsky (2010) - Lenin. Money. Revolution.
Nikolai Starikov (2010) - The Conspiracy of the Counterfeiters.
Anthony C. Sutton (1974) - The Bankster's Paradise Conspiracy Theory.
Hjalmar Schacht (1967) - The Magic of Money.
Gaetano Mosca (1898) - The Rulers and the Ruled.

The Bankster's Paradise Conspiracy Theory | Antony C. Sutton

There is an extensive literature in English, French, and German reflecting the argument that the Bolshevik Revolution was the result of a "Jewish conspiracy"; more specifically, a conspiracy by Jewish world bankers. Generally, world control is seen as the ultimate objective; the Bolshevik Revolution was but one phase of a wider program that supposedly reflects an age old religious struggle between Christianity and the "forces of darkness."

 

The argument and its variants can be found in the most surprising places and from quite surprising persons. In February 1920 Winston Churchill wrote an article — rarely cited today — for the London Illustrated Sunday Herald entitled "Zionism Versus Bolshevism." In this article Churchill concluded that it was "particularly important ... that the National Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion ... and take a prominent part in every measure for combatting the Bolshevik conspiracy." Churchill draws a line between "national Jews" and what he calls "international Jews." He argues that the "international and for the most atheistical Jews" certainly had a "very great" role in the creation of Bolshevism and bringing about the Russian Revolution. He asserts (contrary to fact) that with the exception of Lenin, "the majority" of the leading figures in the revolution were Jewish, and adds (also contrary to fact) that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship were excepted by the Bolsheviks from their policies of seizure. Churchill calls the international Jews a "sinister confederacy" emergent from the persecuted populations of countries where Jews have been persecuted on account of their race. Winston Churchill traces this movement back to Spartacus-Weishaupt, throws his literary net around Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxemburg, and Emma Goldman, and charges: "This world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing."

 

[...] The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles.

What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?

Quoted from:
Antony C. Sutton (1974) - Wallstreet and the Bolshevik Revolution

 

 

Wall Street's Revolutionary Socialism for Mexico | Anthony C. Sutton

Anthony C. Sutton (1974) - Another case of revolution supported by New York financial institutions concerned that of Mexico in 1915-16. Von Rintelen, a German espionage agent in the United States, was accused during his May 1917 trial in New York City of attempting to "embroil" the U.S. with Mexico and Japan in order to divert ammunition then flowing to the Allies in Europe. 

 

Iconic image of revolutionary Pancho Villa in Ojinaga, a publicity still taken
by Mutual Film Corporation photographer John Davidson Wheelan, January 1914

 

Payment for the ammunition that was shipped from the United States to the Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa, was made through Guaranty Trust Company. Von Rintelen's adviser, Sommerfeld, paid $380,000 via Guaranty Trust and Mississippi Valley Trust Company to the Western Cartridge Company of Alton, Illinois, for ammunition shipped to El Paso, for forwarding to Villa. This was in mid-1915. On January 10, 1916, Villa murdered seventeen American miners at Santa Isabel and on March 9, 1916, Villa raided Columbus, New Mexico, and killed eighteen more Americans. 

 

Columbus, New Mexico, after being raided by Pancho Villa

 

Wall Street involvement in these Mexican border raids was the subject of a letter (October 6, 1916) from Lincoln Steffens, an American Communist, to Colonel House [Edward Mandell House], an aide' to Woodrow Wilson: My dear Colonel House: Just before I left New York last Monday, I was told convincingly that "Wall Street" had completed arrangements for one more raid of Mexican bandits into the United States: to be so timed and so atrocious that it would settle the election [...]

 

Venustiano Carranza, 44th President of Mexico,
First Chief of the Constitutionalist Army, 1920

 

Once in power in Mexico, the Carranza government purchased additional arms in the United States. The American Gun Company contracted to ship 5,000 Mausers and a shipment license was issued by the War Trade Board for 15,000 guns and 15,000,000 rounds of ammunition. The American ambassador to Mexico, Fletcher, "flatly refused to recommend or sanction the shipment of any munitions, rifles, etc., to Carranza." However, intervention by Secretary of State Robert Lansing reduced the barrier to one of a temporary delay, and "in a short while [the American Gun Company] would be permitted to make the shipment and deliver."

The raids upon the U.S. by the Villa and the Carranza forces were reported in the New York Times as the "Texas Revolution" (a kind of dry run for the Bolshevik Revolution) and were undertaken jointly by Germans and Bolsheviks. The testimony of John A. Walls, district attorney of Brownsville, Texas, before the 1919 Fall Committee yielded documentary evidence of the link between Bolshevik interests in the United States, German activity, and the Carranza forces in Mexico.

Consequently, the Carranza government, the first in the world with a Soviet-type constitution (which was written by Trotskyites), was a government with support on Wall Street. The Carranza revolution probably could not have succeeded without American munitions and Carranza would not have remained in power as long as he did without American help.

 

[...] We also identified documentary evidence concerning a Wall Street syndicate's financing of the 1912 Sun Yat-sen revolution in China, a revolution that is today hailed by the Chinese Communists as the precursor of Mao's revolution in China. Charles B. Hill, New York attorney negotiating with Sun Yat-sen in behalf of this syndicate, was a director of three Westinghouse subsidiaries, and we have found that Charles R. Crane of Westinghouse in Russia was involved in the Russian Revolution.

Quoted from:
Antony C. Sutton (1974) - Wallstreet and the Bolshevik Revolution

See also:
The Library of Congress - The Mexican Revolution and the United States

The Rulers and the Ruled | Gaetano Mosca

Gaetano Mosca (1896) - Among the constant facts and tendencies that are to be found in all political organisms, one is so obvious that it is apparent to the most casual eye. In all societies — from all societies that are very meagerly developed and have barely attained the dawnings of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful societies — two classes of people appear — a class that rules and a class that is ruled.

 

[...] In reality the dominion of an organized minority, obeying a single impulse, over the unorganized majority is inevitable. The power of any minority is irresistible as against each single individual in the majority, who stands alone before the totality of the organized minority. A hundred men acting uniformly in concert, with a common understanding, will triumph over a thousand men who are not in accord and can therefore be dealt with one by one. Meanwhile it will be easier for the former to act in concert and have a mutual understanding simply because they are a hundred and not a thousand. It follows that the larger the political community, the smaller will the proportion of the governing minority to the governed majority be, and the more difficult will it be for the majority to organize for reaction against the minority.

"I can certainly call myself an anti-democrat, but I am not an anti-liberal;
indeed I am opposed to pure democracy precisely because I am a liberal.
I believe that the ruling class ought not to be monolithic and homogeneous
but ought to consist of elements which are diverse in regard to origin and
interests; when, instead, political power originates from a single source,
even if this be elections with universal suffrage, I regard it as dangerous
and liable to become oppressive. Democratic Jacobinism is an illiberal
doctrine precisely because it subordinates everything to a single force,
that of the so-called majority, on which it does not set any limits."

[...] What happens in other forms of government — namely, that an organized minority imposes its will on the disorganized majority — happens also and to perfection, whatever the appearances to the contrary, under the representative system. When we say that the voters ‘choose’ their representative, we are using a language that is very inexact. The truth is that the representative has himself elected by the voters, and, if that phrase should seem too inflexible and too harsh to fit some cases, we might qualify it by saying that his friends have him elected. In elections, as in all other manifestations of social life, those who have the will and, especially, the moral, intellectual and material means to force their will upon others take the lead over the others and command them.

[...] From our point of view there can be no antagonism between state and society. The state is to be looked upon merely as that part of society which performs the political function. Considered in this light, all questions touching interference or noninterference by the state come to assume a new aspect. Instead of asking what the limits of state activity ought to be, we try to find out what the best type of political organization is, which type, in other words, enables all the elements that have a political significance in a given society to be best utilized and specialized, best subjected to reciprocal control and to the principle of individual responsibility for the things that are done in the respective domains.

"Who says organization, says oligarchy. [...] Historical evolution mocks all the
prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."
Robert Michels, 1911

[...] Any political organization is both voluntary and coercive at one and the same time — voluntary because it arises from the very nature of man, as was long ago noted by Aristotle, and coercive because it is a necessary fact, the human being finding himself unable to live otherwise. It is natural, therefore, and at the same time indispensable, that where there are men there should automatically be a society, and that when there is a society there should also be a state — that is to say, a minority that rules and a majority that is ruled by the ruling minority.

Quoted from:
Gaetano Mosca (1896) - The Ruling Class (Elementi di scienza política).

See also:

 Robert Michels (1915) - Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie).
Vilfredo Pareto (1916) - The Mind and Society (Trattato di sociologia generale).

Who Ever Sets the Price of Gold and Silver | Stephen Mitford Goodson

There was an increase in trade and Rome became one of the most prosperous cities in the ancient world. [...] bronze coins represented national money and were paid into circulation by the state and each was only of value in as much as the symbols on which its numbers were recorded, were scarce or otherwise. This money was thus based on law rather than the metallic content. [...] This can be considered as an early example of the successful use of fiat money.

While fiat money is much criticised in some quarters, for example by the followers of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, there is nothing wrong with it, as long as it is issued by government, not by private bankers, and is carefully protected against counterfeiters. Non-fiat money, in contrast, has the serious drawback that who ever sets the prices of gold and silver, i.e. private bankers, can control the nation’s economy.

[...] in September 45 BC, Caesar found the streets and cities crowded with homeless people, who had been forced off the land by usurers and land monopolists. 300,000 people had to be fed daily at the public granary. Usury was flourishing with disastrous consequences. [..] Caesar fully understood the evils of usury and how to counter them. He recognized the profound truth that money is a national agent, created by law for a national purpose, and that no classes of men should withhold it from circulation so as to cause panics, in order that speculators could advance the rates of interest, or could buy up property at ruinous prices after such panic.

Caesar introduced the following social reforms:

1. Restoration of property was done at the much lower valuations which held prior to the civil war (49-45 BC).
2. Several remissions of rents were granted.
3. Large numbers of poor citizens and discharged veterans were settled on allotments.
4. Free housing was provided to 80,000 impoverished families.
5. Soldiers’ pay was increased from 123 to 225 denarii.
6. The corn dole was regulated.
7. Provincial communities were enfranchised.
8. Confusion in the calendar was removed by fixing it at 365¼ days from 1 January 44 BC.

His monetary reforms were as follows:

1. State debt levels were immediately reduced by 25%.
2. Control of the mint was transferred from the patricians (usurers) to government.
3. Cheap metal coins were issued as the means of exchange.
4. It was ruled that interest could not be levied at more than 1% per month.
5. It was decreed that interest could not be charged on interest and that the total interest charged could never exceed the capital loaned (in duplum rule).
6. Slavery was abolished as a means of settling debt.
7. Aristocrats were forced to employ their capital and not hoard it. 

These measures enraged the aristocrats and plutocrats whose “livelihood” was now severely restricted. They therefore conspired to murder Caesar, the hero of the people. 

 

The 'Ides of March' Denarius (43/42 BC), a declaration of the Republic's 'liberation' from tyrannical Caesar.
Ironically, Brutus appears on the obverse professing he killed Julius Caesar on the Ides of March.
This is one of the most sought-after coins from the Roman world.

Quotes from:

Stephen Mitford Goodson (2019) - A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind.

 

See also:

Stephen Mitford Goodson (2017) – How The Banking System Works.

 Alfred Deahl (2020) - Money Talks: A Very Short History of Roman Currency.

Stephen Mitford Goodson (1948 - 2018) was a South African economist, author, politician and former Director of the South African Reserve Bank. He was the leader of South Africa's Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party, and stood as a candidate for the Ubuntu Party in the 2014 General Elections.

Why Amish do not Pay Social Security Taxes │ Martin Armstrong

Martin Armstrong (Apr 5, 2017) -  In 1935, Roosevelt introduced “The Social Security Act” which passed Congress. However, the act was described “Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.” At first, the Act covered only industry and commerce. It was later extended to include farm operators in 1955. The SS tax was to be at the rate of 3% of income up to an established limit.

The Amish pay taxes because the Bible said: “paying unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” It was in 1956 that the IRS went to tell the Amish they were now under Social Security and they would have to pay. One Amishman was quoted in a November 1962 Reader’s Digest article: “Allowing our members to shift their interdependence on each other to dependence upon any outside source would inevitably lead to the breakup of our order.” The constitutional question that has never been decided, what happens when the taxing power of government violates the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion? It clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” 

Then Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, that there should be “a wall of separation between church and state.” They feared that a minority religion could be subjugated by the Federal Government acknowledging a national religion. The Johnson Amendment, named for Lyndon Johnson, is a provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. If churches involve themselves in politics, then indeed that creates a reverse problem where the state can be taken over by one religion and oppress all others; so it can go both ways. Historically, religions have often seized governments and outlawed all other religions.In this instance concerning taxation in direct conflict with religion, a group of Amish presented a petition to Congress, with 14,000 signatures. Naturally, Congress ignored them. The Amish reasonably questioned what possible harm they could do by not paying into Social Security. “We do not want to be burdensome, but we do not want to lose our birthright to everlasting glory, therefore we must do all we can to live our faith!” 

The IRS moved to go after the Amish and seize their bank accounts. The problem was – they had none! The IRS then sought to go after anyone buying milk from the Amish and attach their payments to divert them to the IRS. Most simply refused for such a scheme would happen just once and end the business. The IRS, refusing to consider any religious principle, moved in to seize property. In this case of the Amish, that meant cows and horses. They would rather have the Amish die than respect anyone’s rights to religion. Valentine Byler of the Amish community in Pennsylvania, owed four years of IRS taxes. The IRS, of course, tacked on interest and penalties to raise it up to $308.96. Byler argued his religion forbid paying insurance. The IRS said that was a “technicality” and that it was really just a tax. Vyler has no bank account to seize so they issued a summons to appear in court for a charge of contempt. The judge in Federal District Court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, according to a Reader’s Digest article, “angrily demanded of the IRS agents, ‘Don’t you have anything better to do than to take a peaceful man off his farm and drag him into court?’” The Judge then dismissed the case. The IRS never gives up. The IRS had to issue a statement on April 18, 1961 in which they said: “Since Mr. Byler had no bank account against which to levy for the tax due, it was decided as a last desperate measure to resort to seizure and sale of personal property.” The IRS seized three of Byler’s six horses while he was actually plowing the ground for the spring planting. The IRS then sold the three horses at auction on May 1, 1961 getting $460. They then used this to satisfy the $308.96 and then charged him $113.15 in expenses and graciously returned $37.89. The incident made national news and was being used by the Communists to show how capitalism was ruthless. The New York Herald Tribune, reported the story with the bold headline: “Welfarism Gone Mad.”

The IRS Chief of Collections was forced to respond claiming he was unaware of the plowing situation. “Plowing never occurred to me. I live in an apartment.” To show the mentality of those who are bureaucrats, he then said: “We don’t ask people their race or religion when we administer the tax laws. People have no right to use their religion as an excuse not to pay taxes.” The IRS was then compelled to issue a press release in 1961, stating the Amish stance that “Social Security payments, in their opinion, are insurance premiums and not taxes. They, therefore, will not pay the ‘premium’ nor accept any of the benefits.” The Amish met with the IRS Commissioner in September, 1961 in Washington, DC, They cited several Bible passages, including I Timothy 5:8, which says, “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.” 

The public outrage at the conduct of the IRS was international. The Amish argued they were entitled to an exemption based on the First Amendment. The IRS agreed it would stop further seizures until the case was settled. Now, senators promised to try to pass a bill in Congress and everything stopped. The Amish hired a lawyer to challenge this conflict between the taxing power and the First Amendment. However, as the court date approached, they realized if they lost in court, it was over. They then looked to Congress to pursue a legislative exemption. Finally, in 1965, the Medicare bill was passed by Congress. Congress realized that if the Amish went to court and won, then others could challenge the right to tax conflicting with the First Amendment. Congress quietly put in on page 138 a clause exempting the Old Order Amish, and any other religious sect who conscientiously objected to insurance, from paying Social Security payments, providing that sect had been in existence since December 31, 1950. The Senate approved in July, and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law on August 13, 1965.

The open question remains simply this; the first explicit references to the tithe appear in Genesis 14, where Abraham tithes to Melchizedek, and in Genesis 28, where Jacob promises to give God “a full tenth.” But where did the idea to tithe come from? Many argue Abraham and Jacob were simply following the customs of the surrounding nations. But Scripture points in a different direction. In Genesis26:5, God says, “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” In the New Testament, Jesus upholds the tithe in Matthew 23:23 (cf. Luke11:42). He condemns the Pharisees for their tedious commitment to one part of God’s law, the tithe, while neglecting “the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” Then he states, “These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”

One of the Five Pillars of Islam, zakat is a religious obligation for all Muslims who meet the necessary criteria of wealth. This too is not a charitable contribution, but is considered to be an obligatory tax or  alms. The payment and disputes on zakat have also been controversial in the history of Islam. The zakat is based on income and the value of all of one’s possessions or property. It has been traditionally set at 2.5% above a minimum amount known as nisab, which has also been greatly debated.

In Judaeo-Christianity, the “tithe” was a one tenth of annual produce or earnings, formerly taken as a tax for the support of the church and clergy in Christianity. The question is, does exceeding the level prescribed as a “tithe” violate the First Amendment? If true, then any income tax imposed beyond 10% would violate the First Amendment. Since the Ten Commandments also prohibits coveting anything that belonged to a neighbor including his wife or property, it would appear that Socialism championed by Karl Marx violates the First Amendment and any tax should not exceed 10%. Hence, progressive taxation would be unconstitutional if not a flat tax. Some argue it also violates Equal Protection of the laws. The Tax at the time of Jesus’s statement of give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, was less than 5%. Historically during the Roman Republic, the tax imposed was 1%. During time of war, the taxes would rise to 3%. Ever since Karl Marx, who said religion is the opium of the masses, politicians have loved Marxism and used it to exploit the people to the point governments are averaging now 40% of the entire economy. They have outpaced all other businesses beating the bankers and multinational corporations. They have become the 800 pound gorilla in the corner of the room nobody notices is even there. Politicians always preach against the “rich” which increases the wealth of government [...]

The Developed World Populism Index │ Ray Dalio

* The latest point includes cases like Trump, UKIP in the UK, AfD in Germany, National Front in France,
Podemos in Spain, and Five Star Movement in Italy. It doesn’t include major emerging country populists,
like Erdogan in Turkey or Duterte in the Philippines.

On March 22, 2017 Ray Dalio published "Populism: The Phenomenon", a paper that analyzes the role of populism in today’s world and in history. Ray Dalio runs the $150 billion dollar hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest. The paper introduces a "Developed World Populism Index", which Dalio says measures the strength of populism over time. It’s a weighted index of the vote share of anti-establishment parties or candidates in national elections for major developed countries since 1900. The index shows that populism is now at its highest level since the early 1930s. Contemporary populism includes supporters of Donald Trump, UKIP in the UK, AfD in Germany, National Front in France, Podemos in Spain and Five Star Movement in Italy. "Populism is not well understood because, over the past several decades, it has been infrequent in emerging countries (e.g., Chávez’s Venezuela, Duterte’s Philippines, etc.) and virtually nonexistent in developed countries. It is one of those phenomena that comes along in a big way about once a lifetime — like pandemics, depressions, or wars. The last time that it existed as a major force in the world was in the 1930s, when most countries became populist. Over the last year, it has again emerged as a major force."
 

A portrait of President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) hangs on the wall behind President Trump in the
Oval Office of the White House. Jackson was a rich, bragging populist, who said: "I was born for a
storm and a calm doesn’t suit me." Also: "Peace, above all things, is to be desired, but blood must
sometimes be spilled to obtain it on equable and lasting terms." Trump like Jackson is a rich, bragging
businessman, a narcissist and reality TV star, who never held any public office before. Calm doesn’t
suit him either, and millions at the U.S. home front are prepared for storm and blood
(see also HERE + HERE).

"We believe that populism’s role in shaping economic conditions will probably be more powerful than classic monetary and fiscal policies (as well as a big influence on fiscal policies)," writes Dalio and three Bridgewater colleagues. Populism is a political and social phenomenon that arises from the common man, typically not well-educated, being fed up with 1) wealth and opportunity gaps, 2) perceived cultural threats from those with different values in the country and from outsiders, the “establishment elites” in positions of power, and 4) government not working effectively for them, according to Dalio. In other words, populism is a rebellion of the common man against the elites and, to some extend, against the system. In summary, populism is:

• power to the common man.
• through the tactic of attacking the establishment, the elites, and the powerful.
• brought about by wealth and opportunity gaps, xenophobia, and people being fed up with government not working effectively, which leads to the emergence of the strong leader to serve the common man and make the system run more efficiently.
• protectionism.
• nationalism.
• militarism.
• greater conflict, and greater attempts to influence or control the media.