Here is an article that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, on September 20, 2021, at 11:21 am ET.  It gave me hope of Capitalism’s demise, something 7.9 billion people on this planet should want to have happen immediately, if not sooner.  It also gave me confidence in the efficacy of Equism.

Xi Jinping’s campaign against private enterprise, it is increasingly clear, is far more ambitious than meets the eye.

The Chinese President is not just trying to rein in a few big tech and other companies and show who is boss in China.

He is trying to roll back China’s decades long evolution toward Western-style capitalism and put the country on a different path entirely, a close examination of Mr. Xi’s writings and his discussions with party officials, and interviews with people involved in policy making, show.

Congratulations are in order!  Thank you President Xi.  We now have a Brother who knows the evils of “Western-style Capitalism” and is on the move away from ‘it’ and ‘them’.

In Mr. Xi’s opinion, private capital now has been allowed to run amok, menacing the party’s legitimacy, officials familiar with his priorities say. The Wall Street Journal examination shows he is trying forcefully to get China back to the vision of Mao Zedong, who saw capitalism as a transitory phase on the road to socialism.

Mao’s objective has been achieved and Capitalism can be jettisoned.  But I must hasten to add that the Socialism of President Xi is not the same as that of Marx and Engels, nor Lenin or Mao Zedong.  Their Socialism was based on politics; President Xi’s Socialism is based on economics, a new economic paradigm I call Equism.  President Xi understands that currency (money), provides the energy that powers our world.  The medium of exchange (money), facilitates the production, distribution, and consumption of the goods and services necessary for any organized people to survive, and thrive.

Mr. Xi isn’t planning to eradicate market forces; the Journal examination indicates. But he appears to want a state in which the party does more to steer flows of money, sets tighter parameters for entrepreneurs and investors and their ability to make profits, and exercises even more control over the economy than now. In essence, this suggests that he aims to rewrite the rules of business in what could someday be the world’s biggest economy.

What a wonderful thought!  The rules of economics must be rewritten.  Remember what Pope Francis, spiritual leader of over 1/6 of the world’s population said on December 8, 2020, as quoted by Haley Messinger in an article posted on nbcnews.com that day.

“An economic system that is fair, trustworthy and capable of addressing the most profound challenges facing humanity and our planet is urgently needed.” – Pope Francis

I agree with Pope Francis, and obviously General Secretary Xi does as well.

That opportunity can only be achieved by establishing a new economic paradigm [Equism] that maintains free enterprise (entrepreneurship) and collective cooperation (partnerships and corporations), while guaranteeing a societal protocol that provides each citizen their food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, transportation, and communication needs.

Please see my book, Capitalism Birthed Racism: When Racism Will End, and What Will Replace Capitalism; Equism is the Harbinger for specific detail. 

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Brother Julius Nyerere’s similar vision for Tanzania, over 60 years ago.  The operational aspect and implementation of  Equism was born in my mind the moment I read his speech.

“We have declared that we wish to build our economy on the basis of the equality of all citizens and have specifically rejected the concept of creating a class system where one group of people owns the means of production for the purpose of getting profit and another group works for them.  We have not excluded private enterprise, and we want people to start their own productive and commercial undertakings.  But we have said that the emphasis in our economy should be on ownership by the people, through the people’s own institutions.  What we are thus trying to do is build a ‘mixed economy’ which includes both public and private enterprise – with the emphasis on the former – so as to get the most rapid and most beneficial economic development.” – Julius Nyerere, the 1^st President of Tanzania, 1960

The WJS article continues,

“China has entered a new stage of development,” Mr. Xi declared in a speech in January. The goal, he said, is to build China into a “modern socialist power.”

…Mr. Xi has signaled plans to go much further. During a leadership meeting in August, he emphasized a goal of “common prosperity,” which calls for a more equal distribution of wealth. This would be achieved in part through more government intervention in the economy and more steps to get the rich to share the fruits of their success.

If you can’t categorize Chairman Xi’s objective of “common prosperity” as anything but brilliantly altruistic, you need to seriously examine your value system.

An Aug. 29 online commentary circulated by state media called it a “profound revolution” for the country.

“Xi does think he’s moving to a new kind of system that doesn’t exist anywhere in the world,” said Barry Naughton, a China economy expert at the University of California, San Diego. “I call it a government-steered economy.”

I too think President Xi is moving to a new kind of system that doesn’t  presently exist anywhere in the world until now.  I call it Equism.  Please see my book referenced above.  The critical point in both President Xi’s goal, and Equism’s raison d’etre, is the “common prosperity” of the people, as evidenced by the Principles and Laws that guide and govern Equism.

A number of countries closely regulate industry, labor and markets, set monetary policy and provide subsidies to help boost their economies. In Mr. Xi’s version, the government would have a level of control that would allow it to steer the economy and industry along a path of its choosing, and channel private resources into strengthening state power.

As long as President Xi’s objective is righteous and just; and is motivated by his will to share the wealth of the nation with its citizens, what is wrong with him having the ability to achieve his goals and objectives?  Is it better that private banking interests control China’s economy? 

What is wrong is the fact that the European no longer has his hands directly on the throat of China anymore.  For context, let me mention something that should not be forgotten.  I can assure you President Xi has not forgotten.

“Originally, morphine was manufactured and sold as a way of stopping people from becoming opium addicts.  And heroin, actually a trade name of the drug developed by the German Bayer chemical company [I.G. Farben], was first marketed at the turn of the century[(20^th]  for bronchitis, chronic coughing, asthma, and tuberculosis.  It was sold as an ideal substitute for the addictive morphine and codeine.  In its advertising of the time, Bayer marketed both heroin and aspirin.  “Heroin,” proclaimed the blurb, “the sedative for coughs.”  Unrestricted distribution caused an enormous drug-abuse problem, and by the mid-1920’s there were thought to be more than 200,000 addicts in the United States.  In 1924, Congress banned the drug in this country, and soon after, the League of Nations through conventions curbed its production elsewhere.

Opium did not become a major problem for society until the nineteenth century.  The modern trade began when Clive conquered Bengal.  The British [East India Company] subsequently determined that the only way to raise money without driving the poor population into arms against them was to tax the sale of opium, then used as a relaxant and medicine.  They [via the British East India Company] proceeded to establish a monopoly in opium in Bombay, and it was required that all opium be sold to them.  The British [East India Company] then sold the opium to traders, who carried it abroad [to China].  In time, the revenue the British [East India Company] received from opium amounted to one-third of the total British Indian Treasury [which they controlled].  That treasury financed the British [East India Company, including its private soldiers who outnumbered and outfought the British forces.] conquest of India and its subsequent administration.

In China, the British became the biggest merchants of opium the world has ever known.  In the 1920’s, the trade in opium amounted to 12,000 tons a year, most of it consumed in China.” – Who Owns the Earth, James Ridgeway, 1980

The People’s Republic of China’s global ambition and aspirations are shaped by the trauma from its years of occupation by the Japanese and the United Kingdom, when it was forced into accepting British Opium and ceding its Hong Kong territory for one hundred and fifty years.  The US still controls Taiwan, a territory claimed by China.  ‘Fireworks’ are about to ignite.  And the detonation will be catastrophic.

“It ain’t no fun, when the rabbit’s got the gun.” – Amer African Proverb

For foreign businesses, the campaign likely means more turbulence ahead. Western companies have always had to toe the party line in China, but they are increasingly asked to do more, including sharing personal user data and accepting party members as employees. They could be pressed to sacrifice more profits to help Beijing achieve its goals.

How is it a sacrifice for a business to share more of its profits for the “common prosperity” of the citizens of the nation that they have exploited for the past few centuries.  It is analogous to Europe’s exploitation of Africa.

“Historically, the extraction of raw materials was the business of large international corporations, some of them founded in the colonial period, which obtained rights to the minerals for relatively insignificant sums.  Little processing of the raw material was carried out in the poor countries.

Many of the international corporations that operate in raw materials are vertically integrated – that is, they control each stage of the production-to-consumer process.  Very little of raw or processed materials are traded on the open market through such exchanges as the London Metals Exchange.

In other words, as long as the poor countries are dependent on transnational corporations to reach markets abroad, there is little real meaning to their sovereignty over natural resources.  It is a legal, not a commercial, distinction.

Much of the industry in raw materials today remains based on the mine, as it has been for centuries.  And it is the mine which sums up the meaning of the business, or bitter relationships between first and third worlds, of the debasement of humankind.  Since the fourteenth century when modern warfare was first invented, the output of the mine has been closely dependent on military industry, for it yields up the stuff with which we make cannon and shells and warships and planes. 

Beyond that the mine is a symbol of slavery.  In its deathly underworld the poor of the world labor for the rich.  It remains, as Lewis Mumford called it in Politics and Technics, “an artificial distortion of nature.”  He wrote, “In the underground passages and galleries of the mine there is nothing to distract the miner: no pretty wench is passing in the field with a basket on her head, whose proud breast and flanks remind him of his manhood: no rabbit scurries across his path to arouse the hunter in him: no play of light on a distant river awakens his  reverie.  Here is the environment of work: dogged, unremitting, concentrated work.  It is a dark, a colorless, a tasteless, a perfumeless, as well as a shapeless world: the leaden landscape of perpetual winter.” – Who Owns the Earth, James Ridgeway, 1980

“Supervision over foreign capital will be strengthened,” said a person familiar with the thinking at China’s top markets regulator, “so it won’t be able to obtain ultra-high profits in China through monopoly and capital-market operations.”

Before this year, Mr. Xi was distrustful of capital, but he had other priorities. Now, having consolidated power, he is putting the whole government behind his plans to make private business serve the state. 

At internal meetings Mr. Xi has talked about the need to differentiate China’s economic system. Western capitalism, in his view, focuses too heavily on the single-minded pursuit of profit and individual wealth, while letting big companies grow too powerful, leading to inequality, social injustice and other threats to social stability.

I love Brother Xi.  His assessment of Western capitalism is absolutely correct, and his goal of a new economic paradigm is right on time.  China is on the move. 

Where do you think China is going? 

Part II to follow. 

Here is what led me to the answer.  In 1815, Nathanial Rothschild made the following statement:

“I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British Money supply.” – Bill Still, Money Masters, 1996.

Nathanial was only repeating what his daddy said 25 years earlier. 

“Let me issue and control a Nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws…Who controls the issuance of money controls the government…the few who understand the system will either be so interested from its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from them.”

Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

My additional research on Mayer Amschel [Rothschild] uncovered information on his wife that I had never known before.  It certainly shed a great deal of light on Capitalism’s growth and development, as well as the reason for the centuries-long Jewish hatred, which are inextricably bound.

Gutle von Schnapper, the wife of banker Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking house, one of the most influential European banks (then and now), was born on August 23, 1753, in Frankfurt’s Judengasse, the daughter of Wolf Salomon Schnapper.  Her father was a money dealer and court factor for the Principality of Saxe-Meiningen. 

Court factor?  I had never heard the term “court factor” before.  Here is what I found on Wikipedia when I googled it.

In the early modern period, a court Jew, or court factor was a Jewish banker who handled the finances of, or lent money to, European, mainly German, royalty and nobility.  In return for their services, court Jews gained social privileges, including, in some cases, being granted noble status.

Examples of what would be later called court Jews emerged in the High Middle Ages when the royalty, the nobility, and the church borrowed money from “money changers” or employed them as financiers.  Among the most notable of these were Aaron of Lincoln and Vivelin of Strasbourg. Jewish financiers could use their family connections to provide their sponsors with finance, food, arms, ammunition, gold, and precious metals.

…The rise of the absolute monarchies in Central Europe brought many Jews, mostly of Ashkenazi origin, into the position of negotiating loans for the various courts. They could amass personal fortunes and gain political and social influence. However, the court Jew had social connections and influence in the Christian world mainly through the Christian nobility and church. Due to the precarious position of Jews, some nobles could ignore their debts. If the sponsoring noble died, his Jewish financier could face exile or execution.  

In an effort to avoid such fate, some court bankers in the late 18th century—such as Samuel Bleichroder, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, and Aron Elias detached their businesses from these courts and established what eventually developed into full-fledged banks.

Prohibited from nearly every other trade, some Jews began to occupy an economic niche as moneylenders in the Middle Ages. Only they were allowed to take interest on loans, since—while the Church condemned usury universally—canon law was only applied to Christians and not to Jews.

Who was responsible for that ’swing move’?

Eventually, a sizable sector of the Jewish community were engaged in financial occupations, and the community was a financially highly successful part of the medieval economy. The religious restrictions on moneylending had inadvertently created a source of monopoly rents, causing profits associated with moneylending to be higher than they otherwise would have been. 

By most parameters, the standard of living of the Jewish community in Early Medieval period was at least equal to that of the lower nobility. However, despite this economic prosperity, the community was not safe: religious hostility increased to the extent that it manifested itself in the form of massacres and expulsions, culminating in the repetitive expulsion of all Jews from various parts of Western Europe in the late medieval period.

Although the phenomenon of “Court Jewry” did not occur until the early 17th century [Coincides with the development of the Monetary Economy. 1650-1704.], examples of what would be later called court Jews can be found earlier in Jewish moneylenders who accumulated enough capital to finance the royalty and the nobility. By the 16th century, Jewish financiers became increasingly connected to rulers and courts. Josef Goldschmidt (d. 1572) of Frankfurt, became the most important Jewish businessman of his era, trading not only with the Fuggers and the Imhoffs, but also with the nobility and the Church… In the early 17th century the Hapsburgs employed their services.

…At the dawn of mercantilism, while most Sephardic Jews were primarily active in the west in maritime and colonial trade, the Ashkenazi Jews in the service of the emperor and princes tended toward domestic trade. They were mostly wealthy businessmen, distinguished above their co-religionists by their commercial instincts and their adaptability. Court Jews frequently came into conflict with court rivals and co-religionists.

The court Jews, as the agents of the rulers, and in times of war as the purveyors and the treasurers of the state, enjoyed special privileges. They were under the jurisdiction of the court marshal and were not compelled to wear the Jew’s badge.  

The holocaust isn’t the only thing Jews will never forget. The stigma of wearing that badge was analogous to the passes Africans were required to have in order to move about their own country, Azania (South Africa).

They were permitted to stay wherever the Emperor held his court, and to live anywhere in the Holy Roman Empire, even in places where no other Jews were allowed.

Wherever they settled they could buy houses, slaughter meat according to the Jewish ritual, and maintain a rabbi. They could sell their goods wholesale and retail and could not be taxed or assessed higher than the Christians. Jews were sometimes assigned the role of local tax collectors.

When you control a nation’s finances, you control the nation, as so aptly noted by both Amschel and his son Nathanial.  No group of people want their lives determined by others.  Presently, humanity is a slave to money, and the money brokers.  Now, I have a much better idea of how the newly developed Monetary Economy [1650-1704] facilitated Capitalism’s total grip on commerce and finance, as well as a clear understanding why the centuries-long, deep-seated Jewish hatred continues to this day.

For the record, I am definitely not anti-Jewish (antisemitism), nor anti-Semitic.  Jews, Christians, and Arabs living in what is called the “Middle East” are Semitic peoples.  Any dissatisfaction should be directed at Zionist economic and political activity, not the religion of Jews, Christians, and Arabs.  Back to Mrs. Rothschild.

On August 29, 1770, at the age of 17, she married Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who had set up his own business in 1763 and ran a trading business in coins, medals, and antiques together with his brother. Gutle’s dowry for the common household that was to be set up was 2,400 guilders – a considerable amount, which roughly corresponded to her husband’s annual income.

Gutle gave birth to a total of 20 children, ten of whom, five girls and five boys, reached adulthood. The couple first lived in the Hinterpfan house, which they had to share with two of Mayer Amschel’s brothers. In 1787, Gutle and her husband moved into the house zum Crunen Schild at Judengasse 148, the future ancestral home of the Rothschild family. 

There she spent the rest of her life. Some of their children were also born in this house. In addition to the family, Gutle Rothschild was also responsible for the money changing and currency exchange business. During her husband’s numerous business trips, she also oversaw the goods trade and the credit business in the Rothschild house. (She was the Administrator and Manager of the Rothschild Bank.)

Because Gutle survived her husband by 37 years, she was able to witness how her sons led the Rothschild banking house to international fame. During his lifetime, Mayer Amschel ensured clear ownership structures. After his death, his share in the bank passed to his sons alone, while his wife Gutle and their daughters inherited most of his private assets.

Gutle, in the revolutionary year 1830, after a family reunion, is said to have reassured her worried neighbors in Frankfurt’s Judengasse with the words:

“There will be no war, my sons will not give any money for it!” – 1830

In 1849 Gutle Rothschild, stated:

“if my sons did not want wars, there would be none.” – Bill Still, Money Masters, 1996

Part III to follow.

That little hyphen is far more consequential than it looks. A quick history lesson explains why.

Talking about headline grabbers; this one caught my immediate attention.  It should have received as much attention as all of the negative publicity directed and received by Ye and Kyrie (the genius in them may produce a little madness, but it is easily overlooked by their overwhelming intelligence).  The Brothers are excoriated and vilified by the press because they seek freedom for themselves and our tribe.  On October 27, 2022, the Philadelphia Inquirer  published the headline above, and the following story by The Grammarian.

Between Kanye West…and Donald Trump, antisemitism is regrettably having a moment in the national conversation. But those spelling it anti-Semitism, with a hyphen, might be making it worse. The word anti-Semitic appears in Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary just like that: hyphenated, with a capital S. But many news organizations — including The Inquirer, the Associated Press, the New York Times, and the Washington Post — spell it as one word: antisemitic. Microsoft Word allows both spellings.

Who are the Oligarchical families that own and operate the major newspaper companies in America, i.e. the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal?

The fact that lookups of anti-Semitic (with the hyphen) are trending on merriam-webster.com is understandable, if distressing. In the space of just a couple weeks, Kanye West (who now goes by just “Ye” … ) has faced only shockingly belated blowback for posting online that he’d go “death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE”;…and video footage surfaced of Donald Trump making antisemitic comments at his Bedminster, N.J., club in 2021.

Which is to say: All this mishegoss [foolishness, nonsense, craziness] is bad … and getting worse. Some, such as the Associated Press, haven’t always spelled antisemitic as one word; the change was relatively recent. So why haven’t our standard dictionaries caught up?  Chaos and Confusion are hallmarks of Western Rule.

The word Semitic predates anti-Semitic by a full half-century, but while antisemitic solely indicates hatred of Jews, Semitic refers to a full family of languages: not just Hebrew, but also Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, and ancient Assyrian. The word Semitic was originally just about language; its association with people who spoke those languages didn’t come until later.  Who made that decision? 

Therefore anti-Semitic, with a hyphen, isn’t as precise as it could be. The hyphenated version suggests someone …is intolerant toward not just Jews, but also Arabs, Ethiopians, ancient Syrians, and others.  Anti-Semitic, with a hyphen, isn’t as precise as it could be.

The definition is extremely precise because it names specific languages, and the people who speak them.  Because it is important to elicit sympathy for their cause, Zionists have made the word ‘anti-semitic’ to mean anti-Jewish.  Why don’t they use the term anti-Jewish?  The fact is that the word’s original meaning, as defined above, referred to languages, which were spoken by a number of peoples who lived in the now so-called ‘Middle East’, a subject I will deal with in a minute.

What’s more, according to both the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and the Anti-Defamation League (don’t even try to remove that hyphen), the 19th-century emergence of “antisemitism” as referring solely to Jews coincided with the false notion of a Jewish “race” — a misconception that would lead directly to the 20th-century Nazi pseudoscience that called for extermination of that race.  A pseudoscience produced a pseudoscience.

Both groups have therefore eliminated the spelling anti-Semitic in favor of antisemitic, and encouraged others to do the same.  The unhyphenated spelling is favored by many scholars and institutions in order to dispel the idea that there is an entity ‘Semitism’ which ‘anti-Semitism’ opposes,” writes the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. “Antisemitism should be read as a unified term so that the meaning of the generic term for modern Jew-hatred is clear.”  

There, you have the truth, and their objective has been reached. I am very clear that Zionists want either word to mean ‘anti-Jewish’.  Why the word antisemitism when the terms ‘anti-Jew’ and ‘Jew-hatred’ are clear, and direct?  For now the economics and politics of Zionism will remain for another day.  I move on the “Middle East.”

According to Wikipedia,

The Middle East is a geopolitical region commonly encompassing Arabia  (including the Arabian Peninsula and Bahrain, Asia Minor (Asian part of Turkey except Hatay Province, East Thrace (European part of Turkey),  Egypt, Iran, the Levant (including Ash-Sham and Cyprus, Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq), and the Socotra Archipelago (a part of Yemen)… Several major religions have their origins in the Middle East, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

The land described above is Africa.  At least it was until the Arabian Peninsula (1,200,000 square miles) was cut off from the Continent of Africa with the construction of the Suez Canal, which was built between 1859-1869 by the Ottoman Empire, and financed by the French House of Rothschild (Bonds and Shares). 

According to Wikipedia, 

…the term “Middle East” may have originated in the 1850s in the British India Office [The privately-owned British East India Company]. 

You can rest assured that it definitely originated in the 1850’s, in the office of the British East India Company, and was the raison d’etre for the Suez Canal’s construction.  The British East India Company would not allow the financial benefit of the newly discovered oil in the region accrue to Black Africa.  Ten (10) years later, they renamed a part of Africa, and gifted control of it to the Ottoman Empire, an Empire indebted to their Court Factor.

Now it is time to address the elephant in the room. 

What is a Court Factor? 

Part II to follow.