Crime Against Humanity: Pensée Unique in Economics, 56

As I said, anything powerful is targeted by suppressives and prior to economics philosophy and religion have been targeted too, and it could be said that under such influence the Protestant schism has been a jump out of the frying pan into the fire. If Catholicism, being infiltrated, exploited solidarity to blame and attack initiative, Protestantism, being infiltrated too, reacted by exploiting initiative to blame and attack solidarity. It has been said that Protestantism, in becoming economic liberalism, from Martin Luther to Adam Smith, utterly reversed Ethics from “it is what is right that suits me” to “it is what suits me that is right”. This reversal of Ethics was further strengthened when Darwinism were infiltrated and exploited beyond Darwin’s claims to prop up materialism and social Darwinism.
The first result is a deductivist vision of Man, life and the economy in which every individual is motivated by the goal of self−interest and material wealth alone, and by nothing else. In other words, to hell with his fellow men, all other life forms, the whole world and their future. Observing reality, people and life thriving to the degree they cooperate proves this is a first bunch of lies. But to the degree one can be made to buy them instead of reality one actively contributes to digging one’s own and everyone’s grave by pushing life in that very direction, variously labelled rat race, hamster wheel, frustration, unhappiness, alienation, strain, disenfranchisement, unsustainability, etc. After all, if what you actually need is A and you’re brainwashed into the pursuit of anything else, you’ll end up in a dwindling spiral of B, C, D… while your unappeased need increasingly gnaws at you.
The second result is passing off the “ethics” of the survival of the “fittest”: dog−eat−dog, homo homini lupus, mors tua vita mea are “natural”, just the way it is, and therefore they’re all well and good. The first implications are that attacking and being attacked, defeating and be defeated, defrauding and being defrauded are all well and good, too. The next implications are that the attacker is superior and the victim inferior, and thus that attacking and defeating is in itself being right and being attacked and defeated is in itself being wrong. The attacker deserves to win because he is an attacker, the victim deserves to lose because he’s a victim. That’s the whole rationale. And the whole point is, shifting the blame from the attacker to the attacked, from the oppressor to the victim, from the moneypulators to all of us. The more the victim blames a wrong why, self, the better for the real why, the attacker.