The first thing that we must grasp is that modern debt based economy
is a religion. The word religion is from the Latin religare, meaning to
bind. It also carries the sense of: obligation, bond or reverence. On
all of these counts credit or debt based economy is deeply religious. It
binds you together to a collective acceptance of money as a token, in
the control of banks. The money you borrow into existence (for it did
not exist until you borrowed it) is an obligation and you revere it and
base your lives around it, which is worship. I know that this may not be
a very pleasant realisation, but some truths just are not, and denying
the sharpness of the blade of a sword does not stop it from cutting your
neck! You are bound by a set of beliefs that enthrones a fictitious
token as your god. You call it money and spend your life energies to
obtain it, your desire and your worship is what calls it into existence
by your act of borrowing. You enslave yourself by your worship, to a
powerless token which is the solidification of our mass psychology.
Modern money is simply a token, that represents nothing save your belief that it represents wealth. You are the control mechanism that controls you.
Ok so you are probably still arguing that I am being extreme and will probably argue that if I am so against it then why should I not try living without the token money? Some of you will be saying that I am making an issue about something, which I am powerless to change. If you are saying these things, everyday living is more important to you than justice. I did not write this for you. My advice to you is get on with your living, I wish to speak to those unequally superior men and women who are willing to protect the rights of the weaker. I never intended these articles to speak to you.
The same mechanism controls nation, corporate body and individual. There is one financial instrument that begins to unravel this unspoken catechism. That instrument is the mortgage.
The Mortgage
Mortgage is a word compounded from two Latin roots. Mort is from mortuus – dead – and gage – pledge. Mortgage literally means death pledge!
Across the spectrum from nation to individual the mortgage is an agreement to borrow into existence a sum of fictitious token wealth, to pay a rent on the sum and to repay multiples of the sum of tokens borrowed. The first problem is that by the rules of credit (debt) economics and fractional reserve banking, before you borrowed the sum, it did NOT exist! Your act of borrowing created it. Now to borrow means to take something that belongs to someone else with the intention of returning it. How can I borrow something that does not exist? If it did not exist how could it belong to anyone? If it does not belong to anyone how on earth may I borrow it? Perplexing.
A national debt is a mortgage which is held by a nation. It is held by those that compose the nation at the time of its contract and those that are to come. We are mortgaged as a corporate national entity and we mortgage our children and grandchildren. The national debt is designed to be unpayable, it is a mechanism of control. The control mechanism is this perplexing transaction in which you invoke that which endebts you.This is the nature of the religion. The individual mortgage is limited to the individual, the individual enters into an enslaving contract in return for the esoteric token. The Christian transmutation turns bread into metaphorical wine, but this transmutes nothing into nothing! It enslaves you with nothing but your belief, the token currency is called Fiat currency. Fiat is from the Latin, ‘Let it be done’ because it is legislated or legally decreed by the state.
By the religion the State borrows the money into existence from a Central Bank. The Central Bank is usually privately owned. The State which issues the legal decree that the fantasy debt token is money (whether it be paper or electronic impulse) cannot create the fantasy debt token by itself, it must borrow it into existence from a privately owned Central Bank. The transaction is that our nations must enslave themselves to a financial high priesthood who preside over the religion of debt. These are the bare essentials of the religion that enslaves you. You are the collateral which is borrowed against in order to secure the debt to the high priesthood. This is akin to pyramidic Mayan society with its necessary human sacrifice to appease the gods of high finance who rule the ‘free market’. We are the sacrificial victims both by private election and corporate national imposition!
The means by which the debt is secured is by income tax, VAT and a host of other essential taxes. In advanced debt religious societies expect to pay 20% to 40% of your income in taxes in order to pay the nation’s mortgage. To think that you may do otherwise is blasphemy. But now meet the iconoclasts. We the Muslims have come to break the idols. This nonsense enslaves, demeans and dishonours man. Allah did not create us to submit to such stupidity and it has to and will insha Allah – Allah willing – change.
You must see the time in which you live, this rationally and mathematically absurd nonsense is dying. And we bring that change.
As Europe grew out of its medieval period we saw the steady rise of merchant wealth and power. As this group grew and strengthened its power its only path to recognised and defined power status was gentrification. Gentrification was the absorption of that families into the Aristocracy, usually over generations. This absorption was the traditional way of absorbing talented family groups into a stable generational power structure. Europe’s power was corporate. Each corporate subgroup fulfilled a well defined purpose and this was what made it stable and workable. The corporate subgroups were The Clergy, The Aristocracy and the Peasants. The Monarch was outside of these subgroups and they all had recourse to the Monarch. The Monarch’s role was to negotiate a way through the various demands and needs of the various groups. The power of Monarchy was the ability to foster cooperation between the various groups. This power was necessarily corporate.
Traditionally the peasants paid taxes to the Aristocrats and Clergy and these two classes paid taxes to the Monarch. The Church was tax exempt in principle, but they made an elective contribution to the Monarch. The size of their payment showed their enthusiasm towards the policies of Monarchy. The power of monarchy was always corporate it was never absolute, as would later ‘New Order’ would claim. The failure to create another subgroup to adequately represent merchant, yeoman and professional power would prove fatal for monarchies. Gentrification – the absorption into the Aristocratic class – failed under the strain. It just could not cope with this ever growing class. As the economies of Europe changed this increasingly provided fault-lines as the tectonic plate of this new class, grew in power influence and energy. Europe had changed and the failure to accommodate this change radically increased the instability of the old order.
In Europe the tectonic plate unleashed its wrath in France. It did so in the name of ‘Liberty, The Brotherhood of Man and Equality’. The high sounding ideals were accompanied by a rabid bloodbath of mindless, ritualistic slaughter. It was initially led by a predominance of lawyers who rather quickly lost their heads to the very monster they had unleashed. This Merchant or Bourgeois class, turned on itself, the Aristocracy, the Clergy and the Peasants in an orgy of bloodletting.
One of their first acts of bourgeois power was the issuing of the Assignat – A paper currency – many attribute this for pushing the bloodlust over the edge. There were frenzied arguments promoting this eventually catastrophic issue of paper moeny. What is clear is that the banking class amongst them quickly rose to power, by the time of the genius of Napoleon, France was irretrievably endebted. The genius of Napoleon saw that the way to muster France out of this impasse was to unleash the bloodlust in an imperial conquest of Europe. He however entered into a bitter power struggle with the banking class, in the end he lost. The republic became the pattern for their marraige of banking to state power. This would transform the world as they spread the rudiments of their religion. Having won they set up a whole mythic reading of history, they incorporated the positivist-evolutionary-materialist doctrines of a French madman Saint-Simon as their religious underpin and they constructed a seamless understanding of economy and state based upon their mythic money doctrine. This would lead to the world of the 20th century into systemic bloodletting, the bloodlust simply would not go away.
In the coming articles insha Allah we will examine the nature of their mythic reading of history and the doctrines of the mad French philosopher Saint-Simon. We will also examine the underlying psychology of this tectonic social movement and why things could only end as they have.
We owe much to the French Revolution, once this tectonic plate, shattered the old corporate order, which saw the monarch managing the relationship of powerful but separate groups in the society. This tectonic plate, the bourgeois were forced upon the stage, the truth is that it was the failure of the old order to recognise the deep nature of the change that forced their hands. When we look at the historical record we see that they had all along been intent upon taking a position within the old order. The French king also saw it but the aristocracy failed to see that the old order had given birth to something quite new. They failed to see that this new power, had either to be included or that it would destroy the order that had existed for centuries. The social fabric and balance of power had become unstable. The aristocracy thwarted his efforts to include this new power group within the existing order of power. The bourgeois were forced, by the unleashed psychological forces of the natural human will to power, to reluctantly take the matter into their own hands, pent up resentment and anger were veiled by idealism.
I am recounting this so that you may see the parallels. This banking era has expanded the modern middle class – bourgeois class. The political class does not acknowledge the tectonic plate of dispossessed bourgeois that are unable to effectively take part in the power order. The Banking class like the aristocracy before them thwart every effort at putting justice within the system. Whilst they greedily engorged themselves with the wealth of this bourgeois class. You are the bourgeois and what we must prevent is your pent up rage and resentment from being the activated psychological driver that unleashes your will to power. For this will be disastrous and this banking class are expert at manipulating your pent up rage and resentment. You must become new men and women and understand that what has and is happening is the beginning of something new. You desperately want reform but the political class like the king of France is powerless. The political class is spent, its power is not rooted in any process or social reality. They are powerless arbitrators – they are only able to settle disputes between power groups – however now the power groups do not listen to them, for they have no truly independent means of punishment and reward. They are satraps – a subordinated ruler – to banking and corporate power. They cannot help you.
The bourgeois were forced to take the reins of power. They released their pent up rage and resentment on the Monarchy and then upon the Aristocracy and the Clergy. They slaughtered and tortured them whilst using a high idealistic language. The pent up rage and resentment was not purified by the mass cruelty, so finally they turned upon themselves. It took Napoleon’s genius to save France from her bloodlust, he did so by unleashing it upon Europe, harnessing it for the creation of a French Empire. The group amongst the bourgeois who rose stably to power were the Bankers, they infected the state with their financial technique and developed the basics of their debt religion. France’s example would influence all of Europe and she would provide an interesting counterpoint to the development of British Banking. However all of the strands of banking development would come together in the United States of America, where the religion would reach its perfection. The Federal Reserve would provide the model for enslaving the state completely. Europe’s convulsion in the 20th century mass slaughters of the European Civil Wars – known as the two World Wars – provided the American Bankers – alliances of former European Bankers – with the opportunity to install themselves as the unelected rulers of world finance. They would preside over a sickening worldwide slaughter for wealth and power at all times under the cover of rich and high idealism.
They developed a mythic doctrine of history. The world’s history was divided into two periods, the Ancient and the Modern. The Ancient is the period of Monarchy and despotism and the Modern is the period of the Republic, democracy and freedom. The Ancient is the period of Monarchic rule and the Modern the period of the enlightened State. The Ancient is the period of grinding mass poverty and the Modern the period of expanding wealth and the development of the doctrine of ‘Free Market’. In the next article we will see that this artificial splitting of history, is false. It is a lie and in order to truly benefit from our European inheritance we need to see it for what it is.
The story that the bourgeois power told about history in the time of monarchies is that, it was a time of darkness for humanity, man lived in grinding poverty, with little or no rights or access to law, the power of kings was absolute and the poor man suffered and suffered under the yoke of kings and despots.
The claim of grinding poverty.
The fact that there was a large enough and wealthy enough merchant class to change the course of Europe should be sufficient to tell us that this is a lie. The bourgeois class could not have grown large enough to be a problem if this were true. The vast wealth of the French bourgeois before the revolution is legendary. Yet this mythic view of history stands because it is so repeated that it adopts a hypnotic reality to those who continually hear it. You are taught to see history through this crude prism. It is not true!
Man had little or no rights or access to law
The fact that the French Revolution was led by a large number of LAWYERS tells us about this claim. The courts worked and provided these lawyers with adequate livings.
Read accounts of pre-revolutionary France. Printing and publishing, newspapers and theatre. It reveals a rich varied life. Their support of the American Revolution so badly endebted them that it brought austerity measures and France was feeling the pinch, because of its support of the AMERICAN REVOLT AGAINST BRITAIN. The claims of those who split history in this way are false. It is a nonsense. Just look into any of the histories that provides DETAIL rather than the mythic drivel that is presented as history. This mythic account is very deliberate for it is used to support the next claim, based upon another nonsense.
So pre-revolutionary France was not the hell hole that it is presented to have been. Post revolutionary France however was! The Modern period unleashed slaughter, especially during the Reign of Terror, le Vendee and Chouannerie.
The psychological mechanism of resentment, presented the Ancient Regime as being all bad and the Revolutionary Republic therefore epitomised all virtue and this was the beginning of history. The combination of this with an evolutionary vision of man, his politics and knowledge in a manner that was politically assimilated into the Bankers’ plan would be the work of Saint Simon, though he was never honoured during his miserable lifetime, it was he that would lay the basis of a scientific religion for modern man as an essential aspect of the religious – binding together – worldview of modern states to modern states. This will however have to wait for tomorrow’s article.
The rise of the bourgeois in Europe was the most significant psychological tectonic shift. It would provide the basis for the development of the mass psychology that continues to our time. It provided a predictive behaviour focusing the lives of people around individual goals of the same collective pattern and which would provide immense profits to those that understand it. Once the osmotic pull to bourgeois living was established the organism of society could be easily governed by the modern state. Any disruption in this ‘osmotic pull’ and resultant change disrupted the psychology and resultant societal balance. This was the broad container which provided the societal foundations and binders to hold the mega-cities together.
Let us examine the phenomenon of the bourgeois osmotic pull. The bourgeois osmotic pull describes the psychological need of the bourgeois to distinguish themselves by becoming aristocratic. Their wealth did not give access to power and societal acceptance into the generational ruling class. This was because the generational ruling class did not accept them based upon education, wealth, refinement, acquisitions and or genius (I will refer to all of these as acquisitions). They only accepted them by blood tie and the lived aristocratic contract – the lived aristocratic contract is that you live by the responsibility of your social station and power. You are bound to people and your status. Your life is based upon this fundamental act of service, which is an act of power. I will discuss this in more detail in another series of articles insha Allah.
The bourgeois class exerted itself to acquire acquisitions. But these acquisitions did not give them access to ‘The Club’. This set up a deep resentment within them and a desperation, for despite their acquisition of the accoutrements of the aristocracy they could not change their ‘true condition’. This resulted in a deep hunger for acquisition in a futile attempt to assauge the hunger. The futile assumption was, that they could buy themselves into the generational power group – the aristocracy. What they knew instinctively was, that how we live shapes us and they could not purchase that lived transformative experience. They could do nothing but resent it. This was also the great error of the aristocracy and monarchy for they could not see that a growing class of people driven by the psychological mechanism of resentment would blow apart the established order. They suffered the consequences of this error. However this fundamental psychological driver would be the basis of the society which the bourgeois – middle classes – would build. The bourgeois osmotic pull drives those under its influence to believe that acquisitions will change their essential nature and take them to a higher social class, whilst they experience no fundamental change in the way that they face existence. Even after their resentment had destroyed any genuine possibility of aristocracy, there remains an aristocratic mythology, which is necessary for their self definition. The consumer society is the solidification of this deep set psychological driver, it represents the drive to acquire your way into society. You are not you by any essential characteristics but by what you acquire. This is the bourgeois curse and the deep hunger that is unleashed to devour our world. Mass education is the main means of spreading the bourgeois osmotic pull which is a plague, the other is media – the Hollywood dream machine.
Modern usury is nothing but the projection this psychological driver. The money is essentially nothing but it has the accoutrements of money.
In our previous post we discussed the bourgeois osmotic pull. It is precisely the bourgeois osmotic pull that provided the psychological basis for the splitting of history into the Ancient Regime – the epitome of poverty, oppression and human ignorance – and the Modern – the era of wealth, freedom, democracy and the rights of man. From it came resentment and this resentment is the ground from which history is made mythology. But this would have a terrible consequence! The bourgeois declared the ancient regime all evil in their resentful rage and since they were non-aristocratic and non-monarchic they were the epitome of good. The natural mechanism of the undeveloped self to shift the blame to someone else, due to the discomfort of change and responsibility reigned. This natural disposition became a collective psychological impulse. They saw themselves as automatically good because the ancient regime was defined as evil. Their resentment had enslaved them to the Ancient regime, for it provided their self definition. They needed the other to define themselves. They were not themselves because of essential inherent characteristics but because of the existence of the other that they required to define themselves. The French Revolution as opposition to monarchy and aristocracy became a perpetual revolution in opposition to the counter-revolutionary.
The dehumanised other was necessary for the humanised bourgeois to exist and heaven help whoever dared to analyse their essential natures! Our culture requires the other to define itself. Do not dare to examine it with respect to itself. Its good must always be relative to the other; the other being the epitome of evil. The Muslims are now that other, but the list is long: Aristocracy, Monarchy, Counter Revolutionary, American Indian Savage, African Savage, Communists, Terrorists (a deeply bourgeois phenomenon) and now Muslims. The population is held enthralled in terror by the mythic brutality and inhumanity of the other. This vital terror is part of the mythic control. You need the bourgeois state as the bulwark against the ever existent and constantly evolving terror. The state is your mythic mother in whose womb you will be safe! As they stand infected by the bourgeois osmotic pull and its necessary resentment, the world is a necessary dyad of evil and good and we must be good because the other is so quintessentially evil!
This psychological mechanism has ruled absolutely the reign of the bourgeois.
“the natural mechanism of the undeveloped self to shift the blame to someone else, due to the discomfort of change and responsibility, this natural disposition became a collective psychological impulse.”
This mechanism would see a methodology of rule which always avoided personal responsibility by systemic methods. Rule in its realm is by committee the necessary concretisation of the blame shifting that results in their self definition. The noble man is a thing to be suspicious of and to guard against. Once we turn away from our essential selves we become distrustful of human nature. Rule by committee. Bureaucratised man. Compartmentalised and split.
This is what has been done to you. If we do not transform ourselves our psychological selves remain the same and that is the control mechanism. For we will always produce a not dissimilar form. I am not calling for the past. The aristocrat is no longer a possibility, the bourgeois consumed the aristocracy, rent them to bits and pulverised them. They are now part of the pages of history. I call you to a future, your future. You change and what emerges from us changes but: Do you dare?
Charlemagne appeared to me and said: “Since the world began no family has enjoyed the honor to produce both a hero and philosopher of first rank. This honor was reserved for my house. My son, your successes as a philosopher will equal mine as a soldier and a statesman.”
Thus did the career of Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon begin. In 1793 he had a vision in which his ancestor Charlemagne came to him. This French aristocrat had been suspected of being a counter-revolutionary and imprisoned during the Reign of Terror and whilst in prison he had his life changing vision. His career as a philosopher would be punctuated by his mental illness and at least a suicide attempt in which he is reported to have shot himself in the head six times (Is this humanly possible?). Was the man a madman? I’ll let you decide.
Saint Simon felt that the secular and scientific doctrines of the bourgeois society had utterly destroyed the spiritual underpin that the Catholic Church had provided, which he felt was a major factor in the stability of Medieval Europe. French Revolutionary Bourgeois civilisation – the future – was wholly lacking in this stability. He called this destructive activity negativism and so decided to remedy this by developing a scientific spiritual underpin for the new man of bourgeois society which he coined Positivism. It would be a religion based utterly upon social-science, biology, a positivist science and work. He called his religious doctrine Nouveau Christianisme – New Chrisitianity, it was a new religion in which mankind would become the Supreme Being. After his death his followers, who included the founder of Christian Socialism – Philippe Buchez–, would turn his doctrine into an organised religion, complete with church, priests, altars, hymns and their own calendar. His teaching is popularly known as Saint-Simonianism. His students and their students would be hugely influential. They became prominent Bankers, Industrialist, Entrepeneurs, Businessmen, Engineers, Mathematicians, Scientists and Philosophers. They hugely influenced the Catholic countries, France, Germany, Russia, British Socialists, The Vienna Circle (which influenced heavily thought in the United States) and Latin America.
He influenced the socialist thinkers including Marx, John Stuart Mill, Christian Socialism and any other modern socialist including Durkheim. His student Auguste Compte would develop the philosophical basis of modern positivist science, which is the only ‘allowed’ scientific approach (From Peking to New York, you simply will not get a degree if you don’t subscribe to this philosophic-scientific doctrine). Although he was the first modern socialist and his work would influence all of the later socialists, what he preached is closer to the modern capitalist technocratic society. Whichever side of the artificial division of Capitalist and Socialist you find his pervasive influence. Amazingly the connection of the doctrines to him are rarely mentioned.
The Evolution of Knowledge
Perhaps the most influential of his doctrines is this. That human intellectual development was evolving or progressing and that every society had to pass through a series of definite stages. Each must move from a Religious view of the world, to a metaphysical – the philosophical enquiry into what lies beyond the physical – view and from this stage it must move to a positivist or scientific view of the world. He felt that in each of these stages human knowledge became more definite and that in the Scientific stage man would move from the religious and the metaphysical to the ethical. Ethics would become a science. By man’s adoption of science his social, moral and political conflicts will disappear. Science would heal all of man’s woes. The cure to man’s difficulties is to become more and more scientific and this would enable him even to better use the resources available to man. Those under the influence of his doctrines see religion and metaphysics as superstition and beneath the scientific. We have evolved beyond religion and metaphysics and the measure of them is that which is superior and more definite in its arrival at knowledge – science. Modern positivist science would develop into a science of description and there could be nothing higher. The positivist scientists would be the priests, the new clergy. They would play the part of distinguishing between truth and falsehood for mankind and by that mankind could have a mass religion of popular science.
The modern scientific priesthood cut off from the rich philosophic roots of the European tradition, are reduced by this positivist doctrine to description of phenomena only which they term fact. What they do not see is that to see facts, meanings and an acceptance of principles of the way that the universe is constructed – cosmology – must already be accepted and these assumptions become hidden in the facts. The fact becomes a black box, in which we only describe the characteristics of the package. Metaphysics was what allowed us to see into the package, into the very assumptions that our descriptions were based upon. Paradoxically by taking this positivist position they condemned themselves to a metaphysics sneaking in by the back door which they are utterly blind to, for you cannot see facts without a cosmology. This way of seeing was basically very stupid, but it would be the basis of the modern approach and its practitioners would be ordained as the new priesthood. By this intellectual method you are denied the tools of metaphysics and theology which are precisely what lead you to meanings and a rigorous means of addressing the questions of justice. Every university subscribes to this method, the doctrines are in every subject. You are the control mechanism over yourself.
From Feudalism to Industrialism
“No society can do without an aristocracy; shall I tell you what is the aristocracy of the Government of July? It is that of the great industrial chiefs and manufacturers. These are the feudatories of the new dynasty.” Saint Simon
Saint-Simon saw human history as evolving from the Feudal to the Industrial. Science would drive the development of the Industrial. The more scientific the approach the better industrial society would be able to utilise the resources of the earth. The economic evolution of man into the Industrial phase would enthrone the Bankers and Industrialists as its natural leaders and they would be over the scientific elite. The cardinal sin would be to be idle. Man must work and be productive. The Banker’s justification of credit (debt) based economics is that it forces people to be productive! In other words you need to be in debt so that you are forced to work. Your desire to pay your debt is your enslavement.
Society must be more systemically organised and as we do this scientifically the tensions and conflicts will disappear. As they disappear there will be no more moral and political conflicts. Since there will be no more moral and political conflicts there will be no need for political power. When Marx said that ‘the government of men would be replaced by the administration of things’ he was paraphrasing Saint Simon. Political democracy is to be replaced by an ‘enlightened’ Banking and Industrial elite, this is the doctrine. In the Saint Simonian way of viewing the world you can only be free of moral and political conflict by the increase of the scientific sociological ordering of society, led by an Industrial and Banking elite. Look around you. Tell me if this isn’t familiar.
In Saint Simon’s view the industrial age must be characterised by the systems based organisation of society, the more scientific and systemic the organisation the better it will be for man. It will take man to a utopian future in which he and things can be administrated. Social engineering, bureaucratic controls and the systems planning of cities are all the legacy of the influence of his thought. This way of thinking would systemically malform man and rename his malformation, evolution. Your psychology is the politic so you must be taught. That is the most fundamental role of mass education. You are the control mechanism of yourself.
Charlemagne appeared to me and said: “Since the world began no family has enjoyed the honor to produce both a hero and philosopher of first rank. This honor was reserved for my house. My son, your successes as a philosopher will equal mine as a soldier and a statesman.”
Thus did the career of Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon begin. In 1793 he had a vision in which his ancestor Charlemagne came to him. This French aristocrat had been suspected of being a counter-revolutionary and imprisoned during the Reign of Terror and whilst in prison he had his life changing vision. His career as a philosopher would be punctuated by his mental illness and at least a suicide attempt in which he is reported to have shot himself in the head six times (Is this humanly possible?). Was the man a madman? I’ll let you decide.
Saint Simon felt that the secular and scientific doctrines of the bourgeois society had utterly destroyed the spiritual underpin that the Catholic Church had provided, which he felt was a major factor in the stability of Medieval Europe. French Revolutionary Bourgeois civilisation – the future – was wholly lacking in this stability. He called this destructive activity negativism and so decided to remedy this by developing a scientific spiritual underpin for the new man of bourgeois society which he coined Positivism. It would be a religion based utterly upon social-science, biology, a positivist science and work. He called his religious doctrine Nouveau Christianisme – New Chrisitianity, it was a new religion in which mankind would become the Supreme Being. After his death his followers, who included the founder of Christian Socialism – Philippe Buchez–, would turn his doctrine into an organised religion, complete with church, priests, altars, hymns and their own calendar. His teaching is popularly known as Saint-Simonianism. His students and their students would be hugely influential. They became prominent Bankers, Industrialist, Entrepeneurs, Businessmen, Engineers, Mathematicians, Scientists and Philosophers. They hugely influenced the Catholic countries, France, Germany, Russia, British Socialists, The Vienna Circle (which influenced heavily thought in the United States) and Latin America.
He influenced the socialist thinkers including Marx, John Stuart Mill, Christian Socialism and any other modern socialist including Durkheim. His student Auguste Compte would develop the philosophical basis of modern positivist science, which is the only ‘allowed’ scientific approach (From Peking to New York, you simply will not get a degree if you don’t subscribe to this philosophic-scientific doctrine). Although he was the first modern socialist and his work would influence all of the later socialists, what he preached is closer to the modern capitalist technocratic society. Whichever side of the artificial division of Capitalist and Socialist you find his pervasive influence. Amazingly the connection of the doctrines to him are rarely mentioned.
http://www.alexcarberry.com/
Modern money is simply a token, that represents nothing save your belief that it represents wealth. You are the control mechanism that controls you.
Ok so you are probably still arguing that I am being extreme and will probably argue that if I am so against it then why should I not try living without the token money? Some of you will be saying that I am making an issue about something, which I am powerless to change. If you are saying these things, everyday living is more important to you than justice. I did not write this for you. My advice to you is get on with your living, I wish to speak to those unequally superior men and women who are willing to protect the rights of the weaker. I never intended these articles to speak to you.
The same mechanism controls nation, corporate body and individual. There is one financial instrument that begins to unravel this unspoken catechism. That instrument is the mortgage.
The Mortgage
Mortgage is a word compounded from two Latin roots. Mort is from mortuus – dead – and gage – pledge. Mortgage literally means death pledge!
Across the spectrum from nation to individual the mortgage is an agreement to borrow into existence a sum of fictitious token wealth, to pay a rent on the sum and to repay multiples of the sum of tokens borrowed. The first problem is that by the rules of credit (debt) economics and fractional reserve banking, before you borrowed the sum, it did NOT exist! Your act of borrowing created it. Now to borrow means to take something that belongs to someone else with the intention of returning it. How can I borrow something that does not exist? If it did not exist how could it belong to anyone? If it does not belong to anyone how on earth may I borrow it? Perplexing.
A national debt is a mortgage which is held by a nation. It is held by those that compose the nation at the time of its contract and those that are to come. We are mortgaged as a corporate national entity and we mortgage our children and grandchildren. The national debt is designed to be unpayable, it is a mechanism of control. The control mechanism is this perplexing transaction in which you invoke that which endebts you.This is the nature of the religion. The individual mortgage is limited to the individual, the individual enters into an enslaving contract in return for the esoteric token. The Christian transmutation turns bread into metaphorical wine, but this transmutes nothing into nothing! It enslaves you with nothing but your belief, the token currency is called Fiat currency. Fiat is from the Latin, ‘Let it be done’ because it is legislated or legally decreed by the state.
By the religion the State borrows the money into existence from a Central Bank. The Central Bank is usually privately owned. The State which issues the legal decree that the fantasy debt token is money (whether it be paper or electronic impulse) cannot create the fantasy debt token by itself, it must borrow it into existence from a privately owned Central Bank. The transaction is that our nations must enslave themselves to a financial high priesthood who preside over the religion of debt. These are the bare essentials of the religion that enslaves you. You are the collateral which is borrowed against in order to secure the debt to the high priesthood. This is akin to pyramidic Mayan society with its necessary human sacrifice to appease the gods of high finance who rule the ‘free market’. We are the sacrificial victims both by private election and corporate national imposition!
The means by which the debt is secured is by income tax, VAT and a host of other essential taxes. In advanced debt religious societies expect to pay 20% to 40% of your income in taxes in order to pay the nation’s mortgage. To think that you may do otherwise is blasphemy. But now meet the iconoclasts. We the Muslims have come to break the idols. This nonsense enslaves, demeans and dishonours man. Allah did not create us to submit to such stupidity and it has to and will insha Allah – Allah willing – change.
You must see the time in which you live, this rationally and mathematically absurd nonsense is dying. And we bring that change.
As Europe grew out of its medieval period we saw the steady rise of merchant wealth and power. As this group grew and strengthened its power its only path to recognised and defined power status was gentrification. Gentrification was the absorption of that families into the Aristocracy, usually over generations. This absorption was the traditional way of absorbing talented family groups into a stable generational power structure. Europe’s power was corporate. Each corporate subgroup fulfilled a well defined purpose and this was what made it stable and workable. The corporate subgroups were The Clergy, The Aristocracy and the Peasants. The Monarch was outside of these subgroups and they all had recourse to the Monarch. The Monarch’s role was to negotiate a way through the various demands and needs of the various groups. The power of Monarchy was the ability to foster cooperation between the various groups. This power was necessarily corporate.
Traditionally the peasants paid taxes to the Aristocrats and Clergy and these two classes paid taxes to the Monarch. The Church was tax exempt in principle, but they made an elective contribution to the Monarch. The size of their payment showed their enthusiasm towards the policies of Monarchy. The power of monarchy was always corporate it was never absolute, as would later ‘New Order’ would claim. The failure to create another subgroup to adequately represent merchant, yeoman and professional power would prove fatal for monarchies. Gentrification – the absorption into the Aristocratic class – failed under the strain. It just could not cope with this ever growing class. As the economies of Europe changed this increasingly provided fault-lines as the tectonic plate of this new class, grew in power influence and energy. Europe had changed and the failure to accommodate this change radically increased the instability of the old order.
In Europe the tectonic plate unleashed its wrath in France. It did so in the name of ‘Liberty, The Brotherhood of Man and Equality’. The high sounding ideals were accompanied by a rabid bloodbath of mindless, ritualistic slaughter. It was initially led by a predominance of lawyers who rather quickly lost their heads to the very monster they had unleashed. This Merchant or Bourgeois class, turned on itself, the Aristocracy, the Clergy and the Peasants in an orgy of bloodletting.
One of their first acts of bourgeois power was the issuing of the Assignat – A paper currency – many attribute this for pushing the bloodlust over the edge. There were frenzied arguments promoting this eventually catastrophic issue of paper moeny. What is clear is that the banking class amongst them quickly rose to power, by the time of the genius of Napoleon, France was irretrievably endebted. The genius of Napoleon saw that the way to muster France out of this impasse was to unleash the bloodlust in an imperial conquest of Europe. He however entered into a bitter power struggle with the banking class, in the end he lost. The republic became the pattern for their marraige of banking to state power. This would transform the world as they spread the rudiments of their religion. Having won they set up a whole mythic reading of history, they incorporated the positivist-evolutionary-materialist doctrines of a French madman Saint-Simon as their religious underpin and they constructed a seamless understanding of economy and state based upon their mythic money doctrine. This would lead to the world of the 20th century into systemic bloodletting, the bloodlust simply would not go away.
In the coming articles insha Allah we will examine the nature of their mythic reading of history and the doctrines of the mad French philosopher Saint-Simon. We will also examine the underlying psychology of this tectonic social movement and why things could only end as they have.
We owe much to the French Revolution, once this tectonic plate, shattered the old corporate order, which saw the monarch managing the relationship of powerful but separate groups in the society. This tectonic plate, the bourgeois were forced upon the stage, the truth is that it was the failure of the old order to recognise the deep nature of the change that forced their hands. When we look at the historical record we see that they had all along been intent upon taking a position within the old order. The French king also saw it but the aristocracy failed to see that the old order had given birth to something quite new. They failed to see that this new power, had either to be included or that it would destroy the order that had existed for centuries. The social fabric and balance of power had become unstable. The aristocracy thwarted his efforts to include this new power group within the existing order of power. The bourgeois were forced, by the unleashed psychological forces of the natural human will to power, to reluctantly take the matter into their own hands, pent up resentment and anger were veiled by idealism.
I am recounting this so that you may see the parallels. This banking era has expanded the modern middle class – bourgeois class. The political class does not acknowledge the tectonic plate of dispossessed bourgeois that are unable to effectively take part in the power order. The Banking class like the aristocracy before them thwart every effort at putting justice within the system. Whilst they greedily engorged themselves with the wealth of this bourgeois class. You are the bourgeois and what we must prevent is your pent up rage and resentment from being the activated psychological driver that unleashes your will to power. For this will be disastrous and this banking class are expert at manipulating your pent up rage and resentment. You must become new men and women and understand that what has and is happening is the beginning of something new. You desperately want reform but the political class like the king of France is powerless. The political class is spent, its power is not rooted in any process or social reality. They are powerless arbitrators – they are only able to settle disputes between power groups – however now the power groups do not listen to them, for they have no truly independent means of punishment and reward. They are satraps – a subordinated ruler – to banking and corporate power. They cannot help you.
The bourgeois were forced to take the reins of power. They released their pent up rage and resentment on the Monarchy and then upon the Aristocracy and the Clergy. They slaughtered and tortured them whilst using a high idealistic language. The pent up rage and resentment was not purified by the mass cruelty, so finally they turned upon themselves. It took Napoleon’s genius to save France from her bloodlust, he did so by unleashing it upon Europe, harnessing it for the creation of a French Empire. The group amongst the bourgeois who rose stably to power were the Bankers, they infected the state with their financial technique and developed the basics of their debt religion. France’s example would influence all of Europe and she would provide an interesting counterpoint to the development of British Banking. However all of the strands of banking development would come together in the United States of America, where the religion would reach its perfection. The Federal Reserve would provide the model for enslaving the state completely. Europe’s convulsion in the 20th century mass slaughters of the European Civil Wars – known as the two World Wars – provided the American Bankers – alliances of former European Bankers – with the opportunity to install themselves as the unelected rulers of world finance. They would preside over a sickening worldwide slaughter for wealth and power at all times under the cover of rich and high idealism.
They developed a mythic doctrine of history. The world’s history was divided into two periods, the Ancient and the Modern. The Ancient is the period of Monarchy and despotism and the Modern is the period of the Republic, democracy and freedom. The Ancient is the period of Monarchic rule and the Modern the period of the enlightened State. The Ancient is the period of grinding mass poverty and the Modern the period of expanding wealth and the development of the doctrine of ‘Free Market’. In the next article we will see that this artificial splitting of history, is false. It is a lie and in order to truly benefit from our European inheritance we need to see it for what it is.
The story that the bourgeois power told about history in the time of monarchies is that, it was a time of darkness for humanity, man lived in grinding poverty, with little or no rights or access to law, the power of kings was absolute and the poor man suffered and suffered under the yoke of kings and despots.
The claim of grinding poverty.
The fact that there was a large enough and wealthy enough merchant class to change the course of Europe should be sufficient to tell us that this is a lie. The bourgeois class could not have grown large enough to be a problem if this were true. The vast wealth of the French bourgeois before the revolution is legendary. Yet this mythic view of history stands because it is so repeated that it adopts a hypnotic reality to those who continually hear it. You are taught to see history through this crude prism. It is not true!
Man had little or no rights or access to law
The fact that the French Revolution was led by a large number of LAWYERS tells us about this claim. The courts worked and provided these lawyers with adequate livings.
Read accounts of pre-revolutionary France. Printing and publishing, newspapers and theatre. It reveals a rich varied life. Their support of the American Revolution so badly endebted them that it brought austerity measures and France was feeling the pinch, because of its support of the AMERICAN REVOLT AGAINST BRITAIN. The claims of those who split history in this way are false. It is a nonsense. Just look into any of the histories that provides DETAIL rather than the mythic drivel that is presented as history. This mythic account is very deliberate for it is used to support the next claim, based upon another nonsense.
So pre-revolutionary France was not the hell hole that it is presented to have been. Post revolutionary France however was! The Modern period unleashed slaughter, especially during the Reign of Terror, le Vendee and Chouannerie.
The psychological mechanism of resentment, presented the Ancient Regime as being all bad and the Revolutionary Republic therefore epitomised all virtue and this was the beginning of history. The combination of this with an evolutionary vision of man, his politics and knowledge in a manner that was politically assimilated into the Bankers’ plan would be the work of Saint Simon, though he was never honoured during his miserable lifetime, it was he that would lay the basis of a scientific religion for modern man as an essential aspect of the religious – binding together – worldview of modern states to modern states. This will however have to wait for tomorrow’s article.
The rise of the bourgeois in Europe was the most significant psychological tectonic shift. It would provide the basis for the development of the mass psychology that continues to our time. It provided a predictive behaviour focusing the lives of people around individual goals of the same collective pattern and which would provide immense profits to those that understand it. Once the osmotic pull to bourgeois living was established the organism of society could be easily governed by the modern state. Any disruption in this ‘osmotic pull’ and resultant change disrupted the psychology and resultant societal balance. This was the broad container which provided the societal foundations and binders to hold the mega-cities together.
Let us examine the phenomenon of the bourgeois osmotic pull. The bourgeois osmotic pull describes the psychological need of the bourgeois to distinguish themselves by becoming aristocratic. Their wealth did not give access to power and societal acceptance into the generational ruling class. This was because the generational ruling class did not accept them based upon education, wealth, refinement, acquisitions and or genius (I will refer to all of these as acquisitions). They only accepted them by blood tie and the lived aristocratic contract – the lived aristocratic contract is that you live by the responsibility of your social station and power. You are bound to people and your status. Your life is based upon this fundamental act of service, which is an act of power. I will discuss this in more detail in another series of articles insha Allah.
The bourgeois class exerted itself to acquire acquisitions. But these acquisitions did not give them access to ‘The Club’. This set up a deep resentment within them and a desperation, for despite their acquisition of the accoutrements of the aristocracy they could not change their ‘true condition’. This resulted in a deep hunger for acquisition in a futile attempt to assauge the hunger. The futile assumption was, that they could buy themselves into the generational power group – the aristocracy. What they knew instinctively was, that how we live shapes us and they could not purchase that lived transformative experience. They could do nothing but resent it. This was also the great error of the aristocracy and monarchy for they could not see that a growing class of people driven by the psychological mechanism of resentment would blow apart the established order. They suffered the consequences of this error. However this fundamental psychological driver would be the basis of the society which the bourgeois – middle classes – would build. The bourgeois osmotic pull drives those under its influence to believe that acquisitions will change their essential nature and take them to a higher social class, whilst they experience no fundamental change in the way that they face existence. Even after their resentment had destroyed any genuine possibility of aristocracy, there remains an aristocratic mythology, which is necessary for their self definition. The consumer society is the solidification of this deep set psychological driver, it represents the drive to acquire your way into society. You are not you by any essential characteristics but by what you acquire. This is the bourgeois curse and the deep hunger that is unleashed to devour our world. Mass education is the main means of spreading the bourgeois osmotic pull which is a plague, the other is media – the Hollywood dream machine.
Modern usury is nothing but the projection this psychological driver. The money is essentially nothing but it has the accoutrements of money.
In our previous post we discussed the bourgeois osmotic pull. It is precisely the bourgeois osmotic pull that provided the psychological basis for the splitting of history into the Ancient Regime – the epitome of poverty, oppression and human ignorance – and the Modern – the era of wealth, freedom, democracy and the rights of man. From it came resentment and this resentment is the ground from which history is made mythology. But this would have a terrible consequence! The bourgeois declared the ancient regime all evil in their resentful rage and since they were non-aristocratic and non-monarchic they were the epitome of good. The natural mechanism of the undeveloped self to shift the blame to someone else, due to the discomfort of change and responsibility reigned. This natural disposition became a collective psychological impulse. They saw themselves as automatically good because the ancient regime was defined as evil. Their resentment had enslaved them to the Ancient regime, for it provided their self definition. They needed the other to define themselves. They were not themselves because of essential inherent characteristics but because of the existence of the other that they required to define themselves. The French Revolution as opposition to monarchy and aristocracy became a perpetual revolution in opposition to the counter-revolutionary.
The dehumanised other was necessary for the humanised bourgeois to exist and heaven help whoever dared to analyse their essential natures! Our culture requires the other to define itself. Do not dare to examine it with respect to itself. Its good must always be relative to the other; the other being the epitome of evil. The Muslims are now that other, but the list is long: Aristocracy, Monarchy, Counter Revolutionary, American Indian Savage, African Savage, Communists, Terrorists (a deeply bourgeois phenomenon) and now Muslims. The population is held enthralled in terror by the mythic brutality and inhumanity of the other. This vital terror is part of the mythic control. You need the bourgeois state as the bulwark against the ever existent and constantly evolving terror. The state is your mythic mother in whose womb you will be safe! As they stand infected by the bourgeois osmotic pull and its necessary resentment, the world is a necessary dyad of evil and good and we must be good because the other is so quintessentially evil!
This psychological mechanism has ruled absolutely the reign of the bourgeois.
“the natural mechanism of the undeveloped self to shift the blame to someone else, due to the discomfort of change and responsibility, this natural disposition became a collective psychological impulse.”
This mechanism would see a methodology of rule which always avoided personal responsibility by systemic methods. Rule in its realm is by committee the necessary concretisation of the blame shifting that results in their self definition. The noble man is a thing to be suspicious of and to guard against. Once we turn away from our essential selves we become distrustful of human nature. Rule by committee. Bureaucratised man. Compartmentalised and split.
This is what has been done to you. If we do not transform ourselves our psychological selves remain the same and that is the control mechanism. For we will always produce a not dissimilar form. I am not calling for the past. The aristocrat is no longer a possibility, the bourgeois consumed the aristocracy, rent them to bits and pulverised them. They are now part of the pages of history. I call you to a future, your future. You change and what emerges from us changes but: Do you dare?
Saint Simon
Charlemagne appeared to me and said: “Since the world began no family has enjoyed the honor to produce both a hero and philosopher of first rank. This honor was reserved for my house. My son, your successes as a philosopher will equal mine as a soldier and a statesman.”
Thus did the career of Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon begin. In 1793 he had a vision in which his ancestor Charlemagne came to him. This French aristocrat had been suspected of being a counter-revolutionary and imprisoned during the Reign of Terror and whilst in prison he had his life changing vision. His career as a philosopher would be punctuated by his mental illness and at least a suicide attempt in which he is reported to have shot himself in the head six times (Is this humanly possible?). Was the man a madman? I’ll let you decide.
Saint Simon felt that the secular and scientific doctrines of the bourgeois society had utterly destroyed the spiritual underpin that the Catholic Church had provided, which he felt was a major factor in the stability of Medieval Europe. French Revolutionary Bourgeois civilisation – the future – was wholly lacking in this stability. He called this destructive activity negativism and so decided to remedy this by developing a scientific spiritual underpin for the new man of bourgeois society which he coined Positivism. It would be a religion based utterly upon social-science, biology, a positivist science and work. He called his religious doctrine Nouveau Christianisme – New Chrisitianity, it was a new religion in which mankind would become the Supreme Being. After his death his followers, who included the founder of Christian Socialism – Philippe Buchez–, would turn his doctrine into an organised religion, complete with church, priests, altars, hymns and their own calendar. His teaching is popularly known as Saint-Simonianism. His students and their students would be hugely influential. They became prominent Bankers, Industrialist, Entrepeneurs, Businessmen, Engineers, Mathematicians, Scientists and Philosophers. They hugely influenced the Catholic countries, France, Germany, Russia, British Socialists, The Vienna Circle (which influenced heavily thought in the United States) and Latin America.
He influenced the socialist thinkers including Marx, John Stuart Mill, Christian Socialism and any other modern socialist including Durkheim. His student Auguste Compte would develop the philosophical basis of modern positivist science, which is the only ‘allowed’ scientific approach (From Peking to New York, you simply will not get a degree if you don’t subscribe to this philosophic-scientific doctrine). Although he was the first modern socialist and his work would influence all of the later socialists, what he preached is closer to the modern capitalist technocratic society. Whichever side of the artificial division of Capitalist and Socialist you find his pervasive influence. Amazingly the connection of the doctrines to him are rarely mentioned.
The Evolution of Knowledge
Perhaps the most influential of his doctrines is this. That human intellectual development was evolving or progressing and that every society had to pass through a series of definite stages. Each must move from a Religious view of the world, to a metaphysical – the philosophical enquiry into what lies beyond the physical – view and from this stage it must move to a positivist or scientific view of the world. He felt that in each of these stages human knowledge became more definite and that in the Scientific stage man would move from the religious and the metaphysical to the ethical. Ethics would become a science. By man’s adoption of science his social, moral and political conflicts will disappear. Science would heal all of man’s woes. The cure to man’s difficulties is to become more and more scientific and this would enable him even to better use the resources available to man. Those under the influence of his doctrines see religion and metaphysics as superstition and beneath the scientific. We have evolved beyond religion and metaphysics and the measure of them is that which is superior and more definite in its arrival at knowledge – science. Modern positivist science would develop into a science of description and there could be nothing higher. The positivist scientists would be the priests, the new clergy. They would play the part of distinguishing between truth and falsehood for mankind and by that mankind could have a mass religion of popular science.
The modern scientific priesthood cut off from the rich philosophic roots of the European tradition, are reduced by this positivist doctrine to description of phenomena only which they term fact. What they do not see is that to see facts, meanings and an acceptance of principles of the way that the universe is constructed – cosmology – must already be accepted and these assumptions become hidden in the facts. The fact becomes a black box, in which we only describe the characteristics of the package. Metaphysics was what allowed us to see into the package, into the very assumptions that our descriptions were based upon. Paradoxically by taking this positivist position they condemned themselves to a metaphysics sneaking in by the back door which they are utterly blind to, for you cannot see facts without a cosmology. This way of seeing was basically very stupid, but it would be the basis of the modern approach and its practitioners would be ordained as the new priesthood. By this intellectual method you are denied the tools of metaphysics and theology which are precisely what lead you to meanings and a rigorous means of addressing the questions of justice. Every university subscribes to this method, the doctrines are in every subject. You are the control mechanism over yourself.
From Feudalism to Industrialism
“No society can do without an aristocracy; shall I tell you what is the aristocracy of the Government of July? It is that of the great industrial chiefs and manufacturers. These are the feudatories of the new dynasty.” Saint Simon
Saint-Simon saw human history as evolving from the Feudal to the Industrial. Science would drive the development of the Industrial. The more scientific the approach the better industrial society would be able to utilise the resources of the earth. The economic evolution of man into the Industrial phase would enthrone the Bankers and Industrialists as its natural leaders and they would be over the scientific elite. The cardinal sin would be to be idle. Man must work and be productive. The Banker’s justification of credit (debt) based economics is that it forces people to be productive! In other words you need to be in debt so that you are forced to work. Your desire to pay your debt is your enslavement.
Society must be more systemically organised and as we do this scientifically the tensions and conflicts will disappear. As they disappear there will be no more moral and political conflicts. Since there will be no more moral and political conflicts there will be no need for political power. When Marx said that ‘the government of men would be replaced by the administration of things’ he was paraphrasing Saint Simon. Political democracy is to be replaced by an ‘enlightened’ Banking and Industrial elite, this is the doctrine. In the Saint Simonian way of viewing the world you can only be free of moral and political conflict by the increase of the scientific sociological ordering of society, led by an Industrial and Banking elite. Look around you. Tell me if this isn’t familiar.
In Saint Simon’s view the industrial age must be characterised by the systems based organisation of society, the more scientific and systemic the organisation the better it will be for man. It will take man to a utopian future in which he and things can be administrated. Social engineering, bureaucratic controls and the systems planning of cities are all the legacy of the influence of his thought. This way of thinking would systemically malform man and rename his malformation, evolution. Your psychology is the politic so you must be taught. That is the most fundamental role of mass education. You are the control mechanism of yourself.
Charlemagne appeared to me and said: “Since the world began no family has enjoyed the honor to produce both a hero and philosopher of first rank. This honor was reserved for my house. My son, your successes as a philosopher will equal mine as a soldier and a statesman.”
Thus did the career of Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon begin. In 1793 he had a vision in which his ancestor Charlemagne came to him. This French aristocrat had been suspected of being a counter-revolutionary and imprisoned during the Reign of Terror and whilst in prison he had his life changing vision. His career as a philosopher would be punctuated by his mental illness and at least a suicide attempt in which he is reported to have shot himself in the head six times (Is this humanly possible?). Was the man a madman? I’ll let you decide.
Saint Simon felt that the secular and scientific doctrines of the bourgeois society had utterly destroyed the spiritual underpin that the Catholic Church had provided, which he felt was a major factor in the stability of Medieval Europe. French Revolutionary Bourgeois civilisation – the future – was wholly lacking in this stability. He called this destructive activity negativism and so decided to remedy this by developing a scientific spiritual underpin for the new man of bourgeois society which he coined Positivism. It would be a religion based utterly upon social-science, biology, a positivist science and work. He called his religious doctrine Nouveau Christianisme – New Chrisitianity, it was a new religion in which mankind would become the Supreme Being. After his death his followers, who included the founder of Christian Socialism – Philippe Buchez–, would turn his doctrine into an organised religion, complete with church, priests, altars, hymns and their own calendar. His teaching is popularly known as Saint-Simonianism. His students and their students would be hugely influential. They became prominent Bankers, Industrialist, Entrepeneurs, Businessmen, Engineers, Mathematicians, Scientists and Philosophers. They hugely influenced the Catholic countries, France, Germany, Russia, British Socialists, The Vienna Circle (which influenced heavily thought in the United States) and Latin America.
He influenced the socialist thinkers including Marx, John Stuart Mill, Christian Socialism and any other modern socialist including Durkheim. His student Auguste Compte would develop the philosophical basis of modern positivist science, which is the only ‘allowed’ scientific approach (From Peking to New York, you simply will not get a degree if you don’t subscribe to this philosophic-scientific doctrine). Although he was the first modern socialist and his work would influence all of the later socialists, what he preached is closer to the modern capitalist technocratic society. Whichever side of the artificial division of Capitalist and Socialist you find his pervasive influence. Amazingly the connection of the doctrines to him are rarely mentioned.
http://www.alexcarberry.com/
