Capitalism and Its Hidden Grammar



…by Jonas E. Alexis & E. Michael Jones


Alexis: You define capitalism as “state-sponsored usury” or “usury at the expense of labor.”[1] You also write that there is a

“world-wide revolt against capitalism…With capitalism triumphant, everyone, including the Muslim world, was expecting prosperity to follow. What followed was over-indebtedness, the crash of 2008 and the recourse to looting as a way to make up for the shortfalls caused by capitalism’s contractual appropriation of surplus value.”[2]

But that is the opposite of what the oligarchs have been telling us. They have implicitly argued ad nauseam that if a person opposes capitalism, then he is probably Marxist or Communist/Socialist or something equally weird. They have promiscuously declared that capitalism is simply economic exchange or just free enterprise. Some have even argued that “capitalism saved America.”[3] Is that true? What are the parameters and what is the alternative to capitalism?

As you have observed, people like the Occupy Wall Street protestors realized that there was and still is a problem with capitalism, but the protestors “couldn’t articulate their plight because they lacked the moral vocabulary necessary to do so.” What did they lack? What’s the hidden grammar here?


Jones: The idea that capitalism is “simply economic exchange or just free enterprise” goes back to Isaac Newton, who famously said, “Hypothesi non fingo” or “I frame no hypotheses.” In other words, it’s impossible to argue with the English Ideology, which invariably masquerades as “science” or an impartial description of the universe.

Newton used the inverse square law, which is true, as the stalking horse for promoting a pagan world view, the resurrection of Empedocles’ idea that the universe was composed of two forces, love and strife.

Newton called these forces gravity and inertia, and Adam Smith, taking his cue from Newton and the English Ideology, applied them to the economy by calling them self-interest and competition, economics set off trying to become pseudo-physics as a way of disguising the fact that it became increasingly ideological and increasingly a defense of the prerogatives of the creditor class against the claims of the debtor.

That is what it became in the United States; that is what it is today. Capitalism is state-sponsored usury; it is not a defense of the free market, because if it were, the capitalists would not allow the economy to become overburdened with debt. Because debt strangles the economy, it is the opposite of free enterprise.

As Michael Hudson has pointed out recently in his book Killing the Host, free enterprise now means freedom for the oligarchs to extract rent or usury from the economy without government interference.[4] That the terms have become synonymous is a tribute to the propagandists, otherwise known as Kochsuckers, whom the oligarchs have hired to propagandize for their point of view.

From a Catholic perspective I’m talking about people like the late Richard John Neuhaus, who founded First Things with the aid of Neocon money, Michael Novak, who wrote The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism while working for the Jews at the American Enterprise Institute, and Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute, a former homosexual activist who uses the Roman Collar to undermine Catholic social teaching.

As to the debt-ridden Millennials who made up the bulk of the Occupy Wall Street demonstration, what they lack is the moral categories that will allow them to see the forms of control that have been imposed on them, specifically sexual liberation, specifically sodomy, which has blinded them to the full dimensions of their oppression.

Alexis: For people who are not familiar with your work, define the English Ideology.

Jones: The use of science, philosophy, etc. to justify the privileges which came from the Reformation and the looting of Church property. Whiggery. The covert promotion of the interests of the creditor class. Capitalism.

Alexis: From a historical perspective, this “looting of Church property” had a pernicious influence on the Puritans.[5] Late Cambridge economic historian William Cunningham declared that in many instances, the Puritans had a tendency to “discard Christian morality” and “substitute Jewish habits in its stead.” As a result, they followed

“the letter of an ancient code instead of trusting to the utterances of a divinely instructed Christian consciousness…and there was in consequence a retrogression to a lower type of social morality which showed itself at home and abroad.”[6]

In other words, what governed the Puritan mind at the time was “a lower type of social morality,” which inexorably led to a lower or inferior type of practical reason. By the time this “lower type of social morality” reached Elizabethan England, things went from bad to worse. Queen Elizabeth specifically “ordered a full enforcement of Protestantism” in Ireland, where religious services were forbidden and monasteries closed.

This was purely based on the fear that Catholicism would prove to be dangerous to English Protestantism.[7] During the same time,

“morality, deprived of both religion and peace, almost disappeared; murder, theft, adultery, and rape flourished, and men changed wives without grudge or qualm. Irish leaders appealed to the popes and [Spain’s] Philip II for protection or aid.”[8]

This will be fully documented throughout this year.

[1] E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 23.

[2] Ibid., 31.

[3] Thomas DiLorenzo, How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, from the Pilgrims to the Present (New York: Crown Forum, 2004); for similar views, see Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (New York: Random House, 2005).

[4] Michael Hudson, Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy (Petrolia, CA: CounterPunch Books, 2015).

[5] For similar studies and short introductions on some of these issues, see for example John Morrill, Oliver Cromwell (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

[6] Barbara Tuchman, Bible and Sword: England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour (New York: New York University Press, 1956), 127.

[7] Will Durant, The Age of Reason Begins (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1961), 28.

[8] Ibid.

Comments Closed


  1. The following is a comment that was sent to me by Wayne Jett of Classical Capital, author of The Fruits of Graft: Great Depressions Then and Now:

    I respectfully state that the views expressed [in the article] are based on important misinterpretations of historical evidence. The elitist power structure now controlling U. S. policy is not correctly identified as capitalist, or even as stemming from what was historically capitalism. The elitist power structure (i.e., the kingmakers exerting power through the throne’s occupant) has been identified since the Middle Ages as mercantilism. Capitalism was the name given to business practices developed by individuals to support themselves by competing in the market for goods and services. Adam Smith and J. M. Keynes later called those practices “the theory of the firm,” or classical economics. The contribution made by Smith which may have brought the most attention to /The Wealth of Nations/ was his report of practices he found it a pin factory: labor specialization which increased productivity beyond all expectations. Smith contributed by publicizing this very important discovery, but the discovery was made by ordinary people who became known as capitalists because they had the audacity to compete for business against the monopolies granted by kings to their favored sponsors.

    • Wayne Jett continues:

      Capitalism used corporate structures to enable raising capital from other people of lesser means in order to compete with the monopolists. Did monopolists stand back and allow these smaller businessmen to have their way with government, laws or the markets? Of course, the answer is no. At every point, certainly including now, the elitist power structure has largely had it way with government policy, and has captured the so-called capital markets in New York and London, among others, defrauding the middle class at every turn and molding government policies even more to their liking. Capitalism is blamed for every bad policy and financial crime that reaches public attention, but the culprits are really mercantilists, not capitalists, who are Main Street rather than Wall Street in today’s world. Keynes became mercantilist when he wrote The General Theory, as was recognized at the time, but not now. I beseech you: do not do more harm to the middle class by kicking to the curb the competitive system that they invented to drive their prosperity in the world of the 19th Century. Let’s fight the mercantilists together.

    • Response:

      Jett seems to have a misunderstanding of Adam Smith, who himself accepted usury and who perceived that it would create havoc in any economic dealings. Smith was cognizant of the fact that the only people who could have stopped him from articulating the sophistry of usury was the Catholic Church. Smith’s father’s family were Protestant Whigs and Smith himself bragged, “Our forefathers kicked out the Pope and the Pretender [to] preserve the precious right of private judgment.” [quoted in Alessandro Roncaglia, The Wealth of Ideas: A History of Economic Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 116].

      Once again it was the Catholic Church that universally condemned usury. True, Smith made enormous contribution to the science of economics, but the fact that he accepted usury in the Wealth of Nations is a low blow on his contribution.

      Usury, as we all know, is the virus that will inexorably destroy any serious economic enterprise. And this is one of Jones’ central theses in Barren Metal. I would encourage Jett to get a copy of that particular book.

      The term “capitalism” or “mercantilism” is not and never has been the central issue. The issue is usury. The oligarchs have always used it to further the cause of their wicked agenda. Capitalism is a sophisticated system which allows the oligarchs to exclude practical reason in their economic enterprise.

    • Wayne Jett wrote:

      Jonas, what is your definition of usury? Any lending of money at
      interest, or lending of money at interest above a “reasonable” rate?
      Until the early 1980’s, usury in most U. S. states was defined by
      statute as a loan of money at interest above 10% per annum. When the Fed
      mismanaged the dollar so badly in the late ’70s -early ’80s and interest
      rates were well into double digits, those statutes were repealed so
      parties could borrow if they wished/needed to do so. Seems to me the
      “right of private judgment” is precious enough to deserve preservation,
      as the only alternative is collective, centralized decision-making;
      i.e., policy established by the ruling elite. There are many examples of
      individuals and enterprises which have prospered by use of debt-based
      capital. Yes, I am more comfortable with individual choice on debt than
      I am with central planning or with lax regulation of monopolist practices.

    • To Jett:

      We are going back and forth on this issue and it is basically not profitable. Here is the challenge: pick up a copy of E. Michael Jones’ Barren Metal, read it, and then let’s discuss the issues he raises at length. We can talk about this at the end of this year or whenever you are ready. It is a thoroughly researched study and it does discuss the very issues that you are raising here. We can even discuss those issues in a longer article. Fair?

  2. Jonas,
    I have a book with a less impressive number of pages which nevertheless you might be find helpful, as I did. It is ‘Solving the Mystery of Babylon the Great’ and is subtitled ‘Tracking the beast from the synagogue to the vatican.’

  3. Both Jonas and Mr Jones seem to want to blame protestantism/puritanism for our economic and social ills. I would like to know their thoughts on why there was a Reformation in the first place and the role of the Jesuits in the counter-reformation and afterward?
    The hi-jacking of the English economy through the formation of the Bank of England, following the coup de tete on the Monarchy and the re-infiltration of the country by that group which specialized in the socially destructive business of usury is not in any way related to the primary goals of the Reformation which was to re-establish the Biblical foundation for the church and take authority away from the few (priests) and give it to the many (believers).

    • Malcom,

      Keep in mind that Jones’ Jewish Revolutionary Spirit (1200 pages) and Barren Metal (1400 pages) deal with all the issues you have raised here. Good luck on your research.

  4. 99% of the time when people publish an article bitching about capitalism, they provide no viable alternative. One thing can do is look at the laws we’ve had on the books, in the past. Then we can try to enforce them. What made “capitalism” so bad was that the system of laws was infiltrated while the people were paying attention.

    The article should instead be focused on the injustices which have been made possible by a population asleep.

  5. Small privately-owned businesses are not Capitalism, but companies financed by capital/money raised on the stock market are. There may be bad Capitalist companies but you can’t have a Mom and Pop oil company. So long as big companies are in a field where there at least four or five competitors they will not be able to behave badly for long.

    The worst, the most inefficient provider of goods and services is the government, viz. the response of FEMA to hurricane Katrina. Walmart could have sorted it in one tenth the time at one tenth the cost.

  6. Puritanists in the early days of USA have engaged in sort of religious terrorism no questions about it. Their genocidal demographics have never been questioned and their law practice has even been set up as a model for world politics and judiciary through various institutions like UN, The Hague etc. Of course in England the god was the queen and ever since the ages of psycho dictator Cromwell the crimes against humanity have been abolished through various explanations of migratory policies, famine, disease, even through science and church. But this is even present today, you can notice the upper hand these puritanist descendants exercise in various forms, such as complete worldwide protection of weapons sales coming from UK or US, the non-extradition treaties for US soldiers that are introduced almost as a coercion for trade and business.

Comments are closed.