Replies

We've talked about these matters before ZC and we share a general critique of man as homo oeconomicus - that it is better to be good in general (and perhaps terrible at business) than to be simply good at business.
However, I note a parallel phenomenon at work on these threads.
That is, the notion that economic success is probably immoral by nature and certainly morally inferior to political success.
The fact is that successful politicians and successful generals are as much directed by personal ambition as successful businessmen.
Many Europeans revere Napoleon as an almost semi-divine figure. Those same Europeans usually despise his contemporary Mayer Rothschild, who in my opinion was equally important historically and a much more benign figure.
If we set aside the most sinister motives for this discrepancy in relative appreciation, it comes down to this: Napoleon was successful at war and politics, while Rothschild was "only" successful at commerce.
When Napoleon indulges in naked self-interest under the guise of "the nation" he is a noble hero.
When Rothschild intelligently manages a strong return on capital for himself and his business partners, he is a crass opportunist.

This notion that people involved in voluntary commerce are morally inferior to people involved in coercive government action seems to suffuse the clouded minds of the left and the so-called "Old Right."

Thanks for thinking of me, Widey.

I am living proof of the utopianism of capitalism and by nature and inclination am not at all hostile to alternatives to that system. However, my loyalty to my Hamiltonian ancestors and the anti-Semitism of most Right anti-capitalists has led to develop a gag reflex whenever I encounter Right anti-capitalist posts.

"Rothschild" was merely a name I had heard until I was given a copy of Ned Touchstone's anti-Semitic The Councilor by someone locally. I noticed that it promoted the exact same conspiracy theory as the JBS (of which I was a member at that time) except for the blatant attacks on "Khazars." I eventually learned that the Birch worldview is merely anti-Semitism with the word "Jews" removed and that by being a member I was part of this outer rings of this abhorrent and evil movement. And my opposition to anti-Semitism was never "liberal." It was based on pure, unadulterated Biblical sentimentalism.

This past experience has led me to pay very little attention to conspiracy theory (while realizing that it is of course theoretically possible. Another reason is that most conspiracists believe in an evil counterpart to G-d A-mighty who has become "the prince of this world"--a belief I now reject as incompatible with the Truth. And how many believers in the "Luciferian" or "Satanic" conspiracy believe the real villain is HaShem, Yitbarakh Shemo?