Liberty & Production Radio - Tom Woods Interview

Tom Woods

Rollback

Tales of Titans and Hobbits

Tales of Titans and Hobbits - Mises

Mises Daily by Juliusz Jablecki | Posted on 7/9/2007 12:00:00 AM

Literature can exert a powerful influence on our ideological views.[1]

Ayn Rand, after all, was primarily a novelist. Many people were converted to liberalism (or at least some variety of it) after experiencing in person her unquestionable charisma and magnetism, but the significance of her novels, most notably Atlas Shrugged,[2] can hardly be overlooked.

Indeed, it is only having read that expressive story that many future libertarians — among them Walter Block[3] — once and for all denounced socialism along with all the physical and mental bondage which it ineluctably imposes upon people. Hence, it was a narrative — a novel or, if you want, a fairy tale — that had managed to shape and contextualize the readers' notion of such abstract matters as freedom, l'étatism, or egalitarianism.

Another novelist who also managed to gain an exceptionally wide circle of readers and admirers was John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, the author of a worldwide bestseller The Lord of the Rings.[4] Even though Tolkien's style of writing was much less obtrusive than Rand's — he never forced upon his readers any particular reading of his book, and he overtly disliked conscious and intentional allegories — the English novelist never denied that his work concerns something more than just elves or dwarves, or that it deals with certain ideas. As he wrote to Michael Straight, the editor of New Republic, The Lord of the Rings was meant to succeed first of all as an exciting and moving tale — but a tale addressed primarily to adults, involving something more than mere chase and escape, namely some reflection of the writer's own views and values.[5]

Since Tolkien considered himself a conservative anarchist,[6] it should come as no surprise that while trying to answer his publisher's questions regarding the symbolism hidden in his magnum opus, he suggested to "…make the Ring into an allegory of our own time… an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power."[7]

Therefore, even though Tolkien's saga is all too often interpreted as an apolitical "road novel" or "picaresque novel for children," The Lord of the Rings could very well be the source of unending inspiration for libertarians as a belletristic dramatization of Lord Acton's famous statement that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Both Rand and Tolkien, then, passionately tell their tales about freedom, but they resort to completely different aesthetics, and, in consequence, paint two entirely different pictures of the world, with different heroes and different challenges. Are those differences important? How do they affect the "moral" of the respective tales? Given that it is of utmost importance just what kind of story one tells, it is perhaps worthwhile to reflect upon the different world images depicted in Atlas Shrugged and The Lord of the Rings, comparing the characters of both narratives along with the predicaments they face, and asking the fundamental question, which of the two novels constitutes a better context, a better literary frame of reference for freedom and Hans-Hermann Hoppe's idea of natural order?[8]

The Titans

Atlas Shrugged is, shortly put, a story of a strike, although not an ordinary one.[9] Rand does not write about labor unions or working masses, but about titans whose irreplaceable work, like that of their Greek predecessor Atlas, keeps the world alive. Titans are big capitalists, owners of ironworks and mines, men of genius, people who are creative and in every respect outstanding. Such is also the main character of the novel, Dagny Taggart, the heiress to the huge railroad company Taggart Transcontinental, which she desperately strives to save against ever more impudent government attempts to lay hands on her fortune. The society in which the heroine lives is dull, envious, lazy, essentially quite helpless, and were it not for the handful of Atlases, it would have definitely plunged into despair.

Dagny loves what she does for a living. She is an extremely talented railroad executive, and directing the whole enterprise seems not to tire her at all. The real burden for her is not work itself, but the necessity — the legal obligation — to share its plentiful fruits with the rest of society — the ungrateful mob of losers. Initially, the situation, though harsh, seems bearable, mainly because the heroine carries on with all her everyday duties with the relieving thought in mind that she is not alone, that other great achievers feel and think similarly, and though they may be outnumbered, they constitute the real engine of the world.

Gradually, however, Dagny realizes that the very engine of which she considered herself a part has been abruptly turned off and the titans, one after another, seem to be disappearing. The kidnapper turns out to be John Galt — a mysterious, legendary hero, whose name elicits expressions of helplessness among the losers:

"How should I deal with it?" asks one frightfully mediocre worker.

"How should I know?" is the invariable, dull reply. "Who is John Galt?"

Galt used to be one of the titans, but greed, collectivist bias, and ingratitude from the society to which he had given so much in the past have induced him to go on strike — not to fight with the oppressive system, not even to try to change it, but simply to leave, taking others along. And so they go, one by one: the great composers, innovators, creators, directors, owners… As a result, the engine of the world stops, and the economy plunges into chaos, for when there is no one to prey upon, the society of insatiable vultures no longer knows what to do.

The Übermenschen find refuge in an extraordinary valley hidden somewhere in Colorado, where the dollar sign does not stand — as on the "other side" — for greed, bribery, and sneakiness, but instead symbolizes success, skillfulness, and creative powers. The one and only unforgivable sin there is altruism. So they live, far from the dying world, bound by a promise that never again will they let unproductive loafers gain from their work.

They await the end of history, the moment when

the creed of self-immolation has run, for once, its undisguised course — when men find no victims ready to obstruct the path of justice and to deflect the fall of retribution on themselves, when the preachers of self-sacrifice discover that those who are willing to practice it, have nothing to sacrifice, and those who have, are not willing any longer — when men see that neither their hearts nor their muscles can save them, but the mind they damned is not there to answer their screams for help… when they have no pretense of authority left, no remnant of law, no trace of morality, no hope, no food and no way to obtain it — when they collapse and the road is clear….[10]
Then the titans will once more lift the Earth — all the superior individuals will come back to rebuild the world.

The Hobbits

Tolkien's novel also ends with a theme of rebuilding the world, a promise of setting things straight, bringing back the right order of things. It begins, however, in an entirely different way: not on the platform of a huge railway station, nor in a big factory, nor in a beautiful palace. The Lord of the Rings begins in the Shire — more precisely in Hobbiton, a small village peopled by hobbits, unobtrusive, somewhat clumsy, little creatures, whose straightforward and rather friendly nature makes them very similar to humans.

One day a great magician, Gandalf the Grey, pays a visit to the village. He is concerned by the fact that one of the hobbits, a certain Mr. Bilbo Baggins, keeps there hidden a precious artifact — a mysterious ring. Forged many years ago by Sauron, the Lord of Darkness, the Ring of Power is one of many rings of power, the one, however, that controls all the others. It has apparently found its way to Hobbiton by mere chance, as Bilbo brought it with him from one his journeys, hoping to hide it there from the rest of the world, adoring its gleam and magnificence.

The ring would give Bilbo strength and vitality, unusual in his advanced age, but it would also make him dependent on the ring itself. Before he knew it, the old hobbit became a serf of the Ring of Power, never daring to part with it, he would always keep it in a pocket of his ornamental waistcoat. This state of affairs would have probably gone on for many long years had Gandalf not learned the mysterious history of the ring, and recognized its true dark nature. Gandalf understood that Sauron knew very well where to look for his long lost precious treasure, and would inevitably claim it.

The ring cannot, however, go back to its creator, since it would mean the destruction of the whole Middle-earth and slavery of all peoples inhabiting it — darkness would fall over the once wonderful world, covering the horizon with a veil of smoke. Unfortunately, that mighty source of power cannot simply be buried or hidden, since the ring itself tries to return to its master who surely will not spare strength or efforts to regain rule over the world.

Thus, the only way to save Middle-earth seems to be to destroy the damned ring. Easy as it may seem, the task is in fact extremely difficult, for being a magic artifact, it will not yield to ordinary flames or any smith's hammer — it can only be thrown into the fire of Mordor in the Cracks of Doom. First, however, somebody must take it there. This will not be easy, since the road is guarded by Sauron's soldiers, the ugly, ruthless orcs.

It might seem that only Gandalf himself or one of the great and noble knights of Middle-earth could undertake such a dangerous quest. Unfortunately, to the extent that the Ring of Power gives its bearer strength to rule the world, it also overcomes him. It is an entity whose nature is to control everyone and everything. Thus, if the ring were to be worn by Gandalf or any other of the great heroes, it would become a terrifying implement of destruction, since anyone who slips it on his finger stops being himself and becomes instead a mere servent to the ring.

Only someone so mediocre, so weak, inept, and created seemingly for the sole purpose of minding his own merry business like Frodo Baggins — Bilbo's heir — could, at least to some extent, resist the evil power. Not clearly knowing what awaits him, Frodo sets upon his mission accompanied by a few friends from the Shire along with the distinguished knights of other races: Gimli the Dwarf; Legolas the Elf; two men, Aragorn and Boromir; and wise Gandalf himself.

Many times, the long journey puts Frodo's immunity to the test, showing that even such a moderate creature as himself cannot always resist the power of darkness. Once the ring eventually gets thrown into the abyss of Mordor, the sun rises again over Middle-earth, everything can be started anew, and the old world order is restored — without replacing the defeated power by a new, more sinister one.

How to Fight the System

These summaries might suggest that since the story told in The Lord of the Rings takes place in a fictitious world, while Atlas Shrugged describes a real-life situation, it is Rand's novel that does a better job of dramatizing the libertarian creed. Nevertheless, even though Tolkien creates his own world, different from the one we see around us each day, he meant the characters, the heroes of the war for Middle-earth, to be just as real as, say, the pygmies of the African jungle.[11]

Legolas, Aragorn, and Gimli are all characters created for the purpose of storytelling, but this does not change the fact that they are exemplifications of definite truths, principles, and values — as are Rand's characters, John Galt and Dagny Taggart. It does not matter whether one fights to defend Hobbiton or Taggart Transcontinental. In their most profound, most significant message, the two novels essentially talk about the same things — about challenges that a man must face, about his moral responsibility for himself and for all that he loves, and about the captivating and destructive influence of power and coercion.

Moreover, both novels clearly denounce the so-called imperative of action, that is, the belief that a system can easily be changed from within. It is plainly described in Atlas Shrugged, where the main characters express their opposition to the wickedness of the world by simply running away from it, confirming with their deeds the famous dictum of Etienne de la Boétie: "Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed."[12]

Even though in The Lord of the Rings it is an active fight and not passive resistance that forms the central theme of the novel, the fight is fought outside the system. Gandalf and Galadriel, both of great powers, consciously reject the possibility of defeating Sauron with the ring — they know very well that it would turn them into tyrants themselves.[13] The Lord of Darkness can only be defeated by destroying that which constitutes the very essence of his might — the Ring of Power.

Those similarities do not imply that there are no differences between Atlas Shrugged and The Lord of the Rings. Quite to the contrary — differences exist and they are the very reason why one of the novels serves better as a contextualization of the idea of natural order. To see this, we shall turn to the dissimilar structure of worlds and characters in both novels.

In Atlas Shrugged, for example, it is hard not to notice that somebody drives the world, maintains the reality in order, and without him everything would plunge into chaos. Clearly, that mysterious entity is not the state apparatus — rightly described as a machinery of exploitation — but a group of exceptional individuals who have simply created civilization — radio, television, central heating, music, law and order, etc. Luckily, the Übermenschen are benevolent and have no evil intentions vis-à-vis ordinary people. They wish neither to exploit, rule, nor control the rest of the society, but rather to impose upon it their rational project of "enlightenment" — they want to make use of their genius and bring prosperity and comfort to all.

It is totally different in The Lord of the Rings, where there is no "great plan for the world"; Middle-earth is inhabited by many different races — elves, dwarves, hobbits, men, ents, etc. — who all live, albeit separately, in tolerance, sometimes even friendship, but as a rule not interfering with each other. There is no government, central or local,[14] no industrial revolution and no uniform vision of progress or future. Even in the face of a terrible war, it is extremely hard to create a coalition against Sauron.

The world in Tolkien's novel is simply divided, decentralized to the extreme; beautiful in the diversity of various races, peoples, languages and outlooks — that is why no such thing as a "plan for humanity" could ever arise there as something good. There are, however, millions of smaller plans — for living through a harsh winter, for cultivating one's garden, for drinking a pint of beer in a local inn — drafted by millions of distinct individuals. The only unified vision that appears in the book is Sauron's plan; and let us not forget that Sauron stands for "an incarnation of Evil."[15]

It is instructive to compare also the main characters of the two novels. In Atlas Shrugged they are exceptional and it is precisely because of that quality that they became characters of the novel. Each of the Atlases is unblemished, pure, proud. Every detail of their physiognomy speaks of genius and magnificence. The Übermenschen do not simply move: they make motions full of charm and elegance. They do not simply work: they craft, always with passion and enthusiasm. They never get tired, weary or bored with what they do; they have no families, no children, no obligations; they are frightfully rational; they live only for themselves and for their occupational passions. If they happen to be businessmen, they never own little family businesses; they run huge corporations, ironworks, mines, or railway companies. In Rand's novel there is no place for moderation and inconspicuousness. Only that which is huge and effective deserves praise and attention.

Completely different, more human-like, are Tolkien's characters. In fact, the whole novel — though told from the hobbit's perspective — has a profoundly anthropocentric dimension. There are men in The Lord of the Rings, to be sure, but it is the hobbits who resemble real humans the most — they are rather clumsy, neither exceptionally smart, stout, nor courageous, but good, sociable, faithful and generally cheerful. The most important characters in Tolkien's novel are actually anti-heroes — they try to stay away from the world of big politics; however, when fate throws them in its very middle, they act bravely and ultimately bring salvation.

What the author of The Lord of the Rings seems to be saying, then, is that it is not titans who support the earth, but hobbits; each and every one of us, therefore, can answer the call of greatness and novelty, even should he live in Hobbiton spending most of his time cultivating his garden, smoking a pipe, and drinking beer in the local pub.

Every one of us struggles daily with the Saurons of his life, and maybe it is precisely those little triumphs that make the world a better place. As for respect and praise, it is not the directors of big corporations who deserve it the most — since, by the very nature of things, they are much too close to the ring — but those who, using only their own modest resources, earn their living by running little shops, kiosks, and family businesses. In those places one can sometimes still find the real, healthy spirit of capitalism. No wonder, then, that the Eye of Mordor constantly looks in their direction.

Conclusion

Given the breadth and length of both novels, the comparison of Atlas Shrugged and The Lord of the Rings could go on much longer, revealing many new themes and interpretations. It seems, however, that even the few differences sketched above allow for a tentative answer to the questions raised in the introduction. As much as Ayn Rand's novel, with its strictly modernist message, could have been at some point in the past an effective remedy against the plagues of socialism and collectivism, the world described in it does not fit today's reality and does not help in introducing the idea of natural order. Today, it is no longer necessary to protect big business from people. On the contrary, it is people who need protection from big business, which now goes hand in hand with Leviathan in trying to create a homogenous and completely atomized society.

The Lord of the Rings shows not only the great danger associated with all attempts to defeat evil power by power, but it also teaches that collectives do not really exist, that every one of us is the hero of his own individual story, and that law and order can easily exist without the state. Despite its egoistic message, Atlas Shrugged is full of imperatives to act, to fight, to bring salvation. Rand's characters suffer not only because the state reaches into their wallets, but because the society rejected their rational, "enlightened" vision of what is good and right.

Tolkien, on the other hand, disliked such imperatives. He hated the outlook that if something can be done, it has to be done, and once even admitted that the greatest deeds of mind and spirit are born in abnegation.[16] That is most likely the reason his characters do not look for great challenges, nor wish to change the world, and instead live quietly, fulfilling Voltaire's dictum Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

This is what makes The Lord of the Rings a much better means for conceptualizing the ideas of freedom than Atlas Shrugged. Reading Tolkien helps realize that, even after the "end of history," the world and society can move in the direction of Merry Old England rather than a soulless homogenized mass of atoms. Moreover, The Lord of the Rings conveys an extremely important and optimistic message, namely that a plurality of many different cultures, languages, societies and visions, all existing together, yet separate and independent of each other, is still viable — not in a democratic regime, but in the new world of Hoppean natural order.

Juliusz Jablecki is summer fellow at the Mises Institute, and works with the Mises Institute, Poland. Send him mail. Comment on the blog.

Notes

[1] This fact has been brilliantly captured by Jerome Tuccille who entitled his book on the birth and evolution of the libertarian movement It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand, Fox and Wilkes, 1997.

[2] Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Penguin Books, London, 1992.

[3] See Walter Block, "On Autobiography."

[4] J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, HarperCollins Publishers, London, 2005.

[5] The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Humphrey Carpenter ed., HarperCollins, London 2006, p. 233.

[6] He wrote: "My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) — or to »unconstitutional« Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word state (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate!"; see The Letters…, p. 63.

[7] The Letters…, p. 121.

[8] For a detailed, socio-economic treatment of the idea of natural order see e.g. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, Transaction Publishers, Rutgers, NJ, 2001.

[9] Indeed, "The Strike" was meant to be the title of the novel; see Leonard Peikoff's introduction to the cited edition of the book.

[10] Atlas Shrugged, p. 686–687.

[11] See The Letters…, p. 233.

[12] Etienne de la Boétie, The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (PDF), p. 48.

[13] Thus, Gandalf cries: "No! With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly! Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused." See The Lord…, p. 61.

[14] See The Lord…., p. 9–10; The Letters…, p. 272.

[15] The Letters…, pp. 151, 154.

[16] The Letters…, p. 246.

PASS ID Act - Papers please

When will we learn?

Why are two international agencies involved in the creation of the PASS ID Act? Why is the international agency AAMVA called the hub and backbone of this system which is designed to track US citizens?

Why does this type legislation continue to be brought forward when the people of the United States always reject the ideas? Who is overriding our wishes and rights?

We should be asking: Who has that kind of power and how did they get it?




S 1261 - PASS ID Act

For one example, from the text of the proposed legislation:

(2) Subject each person who submits an application for a driver’s license or identification card to mandatory facial image capture.

This is a problem.

Global Warming - A Planned Tool Of Manipulation

When will we learn?

The government and other powerful manipulators want us to believe global warming is a problem and that this problem is caused by man. They also want us to believe that all scientists support this position. That is an outright lie.

Thousands of scientists have attempted to make their positions known, but what they say is rewritten by bureaucrats in official reports, is suppressed or unpublished.

We should be asking: Who has that kind of power and how did they get it?

John Maynard Keynes

Following is an excellent compilation of quotes about Keynes prepared by Dr. David Noebel of Summit Ministries and posted on the Worldview Times website. Dr. Noebel begins with a recent quote by Larry Summers from the Charlie Rose show and then follows with a series of quotes about Keynes. Keynes and those around him clearly desire the destruction of the capitalist system, the family and all other forms of personal liberty and private property.

Note that Larry Summers is a "top" Obama "economic" "advisor"

- Shane

Worldview Times - John Maynard Keynes

John Maynard Keynes
(1883-1946)

Prepared by David A. Noebel
Summit Ministries

Posted on the Rush Limbaugh website, February 19, 2009.

Charlie Rose: "What idea, what person has most Influenced your thinking on how to deal with this mess?"

Larry Summers: "Keynes. Keynes and those that followed him." February 18, 2009.

1. "Veritas [foundation] feels that without doubt the following study will prove that the Keynesian 'system'-if it can be called a system-is the primary economics system being taught in Harvard. Veritas also feels that "Keynesian economics' is a misnomer. It is not economics. It is a leftwing political theory." Zygmund Dobbs, Research Director, Keynes at Harvard. New York, NY: Veritas Foundation, 1963. 2.

2. "Even Whittaker Chambers … admitted: 'The simple fact is that when I took up my little sling and aimed at Communism, I also hit something else. What I hit was the forces of that great socialist revolution, which, in the name of liberalism, spasmodically, incompletely, somewhat formlessly, but always in the same direction, has been inching its ice cap over the nation for two decades.'" Ibid. 3

3. "Keynesism is so-called after John Maynard Keynes, British economist (1883-1946). His teachings are today considered an ideological base for British and American Socialists." Ibid. 8

4. "No matter what phase of left-wing infiltration we study, be it in government, in information media, in foundations, in labor unions, or whether we deal with Keynesian socialism, neo-Marxian socialism or with Bolshevik communism, the tracks lead inevitably to Harvard University." Ibid. 8

5. "There are three main trends of socialist thought in the Western world. They are: the communist soviet brand; social democratic neo-Marxism; and Keynesian theories which are actually an extension of the [British] Fabian movement. Curiously, Keynesism proved to be adaptable to the Fascists as well as the Socialist world." Ibid. 10

6. "The socialist lectures conditioned the young minds to hate capitalism as an outmoded and cruel system; the second phase was to despise and distrust individual capitalists as exploiters and reactionaries who oppose social improvements; and thirdly the fledgling radical is hooked by clever 'scientific examples' and formulae which prove to him that the present social order is predestined to collapse and socialism is foreordained to take its place." Ibid. 13

7. "Almost the entire membership identified as belonging to the first Ware cell (Soviet spy ring-ed.) came out of the Harvard Law School: Alger Hiss, Nathan Witt, Lee Pressman, John Abt and Henry H. Collins Jr. Harry Dexter White and Lauchlin Currie were teachers (Economics teachers-ed.) as well as students at Harvard." Ibid. 14

8. "Today [British] Fabians use the teachings of John Maynard Keynes as their catechism of political economy. The American Fabians have slavishly installed Keynesism as the new faith, both in the Universities and in Government bureaucracy. To lay bare and dissect these premeditated deceptions is the true task of the political science of our day." Ibid. 40

9. "Hugh tax-free Foundations, such as the Ford, Carnegie and Guggenheim Foundations, backed by billions of dollars, became the nesting places of Keynesism." Ibid. 41

10. "At the age of 20 (1903) Keynes became a member of a Fabian group at Cambridge which was headed by G. L. Dickinson, a prominent Fabian Socialist. As an undergraduate, Keynes, imitating his father, expressed strong opposition to the principle of private enterprise (Laissez-Faire)." Ibid. 43

11. "This was in line with the general attitude of the Fabian Society, which favored government run by the Civil Service and not a government responsive to the electorate." Ibid. 44

12. "It was during this period (1913) that Keynes adopted the concept of eliminating gold as a standard of the monetary system of the nations of the world. His notion of a managed currency (that he sold F. D. Roosevelt on twenty years later) was an old socialist catch-call, espoused by the Fabians since the turn of the century. It is a fundamental concept of State-Socialism." Ibid. 44, 45

13. "Keynes did not keep his Socialist convictions to himself in those days. His opposition to the private enterprise system was well known to London society. Clarence W. Barron, then publisher of the Wall Street Journal, while in London in 1918, made the following observation: 'Saw Professor Keynes of the British Treasury…Lady Cunard says Keynes is a kind of Socialist and my judgment is that he is a Socialist of the type that does not believe in the family.'" Ibid. 45

14. "Singing the Red Flag, the highborn sons of the British upper-class lay on the carpeted floor spinning out socialist schemes in homosexual intermissions…The attitude in such gatherings was anti-establishmentarian. To them the older generation was horribly out of date; even superfluous. The capitalist system was declared obsolete, and revolution was proclaimed as the only solution. Christianity was pronounced an enemy force, and the worst sort of depravities were eulogized as 'that love which passes all Christian understanding.' Chief of this ring of homosexual revolutionaries was John Maynard Keynes…Keynes was characterized by his male sweetheart, Lytton Strachey, as 'A liberal and a sodomite, an atheist and a statistician.' His particular depravity was the sexual abuse of little boys." Zygmund Dobbs, "Sugar Keynes." See Goggle "John Maynard Keynes: Lavender & Bolshevik." Or http://members.tripod.com/~BioLeft/keynes.htm For further information on Keynes' homosexual behavior note A. L. Rowse, Homosexuals in History. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc., 1977,271f. Also, Mark Skousen, The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2001, 325

15. "In this same work [The End of Laissez-Faire] Keynes showed an early bias (1924) against savings and investments as economic virtues. From virtues he transformed them into evils…Fabian Socialists have long considered those who saved and invested as a stumbling block against the march of Socialism." Keynes at Harvard, 49

16. "Keynes concept of controlling society extends beyond political and economic matters. He even advocates social control of the number of children per family." Ibid. 49

17. "Keynes is a Socialist that does not believe in the family. Naturally, in order to control the birth rate the State must break up the family as an independent and free unit." Ibid. 50


18. "Margaret Cole, English Fabian revolutionary, has stated: 'We Socialists used Keynes and the U.S.S.R. as touchstones." Ibid. 60

19. "The entire Keynesian apparatus is based upon the principle of control and regulation by government…capitalism should now be regulated and controlled by a central authority…One of the central themes in Keynes' system is a condemnation of the principle of 'savings.' …Here is [Keynes] General Theory in a nutshell, with its trans valuation of all values. The great virtue is Consumption, extravagance, improvidence [not providing for the future]. The great vice is saving, thrift and 'financial prudence.'" Ibid. 63

20. "The concept of eliminating savings is not an economic one but a political one. If there are no savings there is no private money for investment. Without private investors the government must provide investment capital. If the government provides for investment it has the power to dictate the conduct and processes of those who need investment capital…All this is demagogy and claptrap. It differs from the Marxist brand only in technical detail." Ibid. 64,65

21. "Another major prop of Keynes' theory is Mrs. Joan Robinson …What Keynesians do not say is that this lady is considered in international communist circles as one of the world's outstanding Marxists. Mrs. Robinson has widely publicized the fact that the difference between Marx and Keynes are only verbal. She later wrote: 'The time, therefore, seems ripe to bridge the verbal gulf.'" Ibid. 68

22. "Keynesian leftists…are confident that a great national debt and continuing inflation plus enormous internal and foreign commitments assure the continuance of Keynesian operations for generations to come regardless who is in power." Ibid. 77

23. "Stuart Chase, representing the Fabian socialists in the United States proposed Keynes as the socialist ideal long before Keynes wrote the General Theory in 1936. Chase outlined the Keynesian principle of abandoning the gold standard in 1932…Chase called his book A New Deal. It was written in 1931 and published in 1932. Franklin D. Roosevelt borrowed this socialist slogan as a label for his administration." Ibid. 78,79

24. "Curiously, the authorities used by Chase in his book the Economy of Abundance (1934) were G.D.H. Cole, J.A. Hobson, Julian Huxley, Bertrand Russell, J. M. Keynes, John Strachey and H.G. Wells, all spawned by the British Fabian Society." Ibid. 79

25. "An analysis of Keynesism in the United States is incomplete without a discussion of the role of Harry Dexter White while Assistant to the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. Harry White was considered by Keynes as the 'central figure' in Keynesian manipulations in the United States. White played a major part in organizing Keynes' pet project-the International Monetary Fund. In the interim Harry Dexter White was exposed as an active Soviet spy…To this day, Keynesians see nothing wrong in White's Soviet role…This eulogy of Harry Dexter White was printed three years after he was exposed as a Soviet spy-typical of the attitude of Fabian socialist elements toward the whole coterie of spies and Fifth Amendment communists in the United States." Ibid. 83

26. "The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator." Ibid. 87

27. "The Keynesian formula fits all totalitarianisms. Juan Peron's dictatorship in Argentina used the Keynesian technique as authority in economic and political matters…Nehru traces the beginning of his interest in socialism to his Cambridge days when the Fabianism of Shaw and the Webbs attracted him…The Nazis did admire the Keynesian theme whereby the government has authority over the whole economic life of the nation…Sir Oswald Mosley, current Fascist leader was a leader of the Fabian Society at a time (1930) when Keynes' ideas were already the officially accepted Fabian line." Ibid. 89, 90

28. "Shortly before his death Schumpeter concluded that the basic leftist ideologies are based not on science but on a vision." Ibid. 96

29. "At the end of his life Keynes wrote: 'We were not aware that civilization was a thin and precarious crust erected by the personality and will of a very few [actually by a governing class] and only maintained by rules and conventions. It did not occur to us to respect the extraordinary accomplishment of our predecessors in the ordering of life or the elaborate framework that they had devised to protect this order. We completely misunderstood human nature, including our own.'" A. L. Rowse, Homosexuals in History. 277

30. "By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but confiscate arbitrarily: and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some…the process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose." John Maynard Keynes, Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920)

Prepared by David A. Noebel, May 18, 2009
Summit Ministries, Manitou Springs, CO 80829

Inflation as a Tool of War

The prevailing economic thinking that drives policy among the nations of the world, particularly the industrialized nations, is Keynesianism. Perhaps a few of Keynes own words would be instructive.

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some… Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

The Economic Consequences of the Peace, John Maynard Keynes, 1919

Lew Rockwell explains how the Fed enables war and destruction of liberty. War and Inflation is an excellent article.

War and Inflation by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.