









In February 1993, Canada was in the midst of financial catastrophe, or so one would have concluded by reading the newspapers and watching TV. "Debt Crisis Looms," screamed a banner front-page headline in the national newspaper, the Globe and Mail. A major national television special reported that "economists are predicting that sometime in the next year, maybe two years, the deputy minister of finance is going to walk into cabinet and announce that Canada's credit has run out.... Our lives will change dramatically."With the baby-boom generation entering retirement and high health care spending years, clearly the neoliberals want to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the U.S. and throw everyone at the mercy of the cruel marketplace. It may be that the way clear to the neoliberal paradise in their minds lies in a complete collapse of the dollar and the introduction of the Amero and a North American Union, where all the workers have the same right and benefits of Mexican workers.
The phrase "debt wall" suddenly entered the vocabulary. What it meant was that, although life seemed comfortable and peaceful now, Canada was spending so far beyond its means that, very soon, powerful Wall Street firms like Moody's and Standard and Poor's would downgrade our national credit from its perfect Triple A status to something much lower. When that happened, hypermobile investors, liberated by the new rules of globalization and free trade, would simply pull their money from Canada and take it somewhere safer. The only solution, we were told, was to radically cut spending on such programs as unemployment insurance and health care. Sure enough, the Liberal Party did just that...
Two years after the deficit hysteria peaked, the investigative journalist Linda McQuaig definitively exposed that a sense of crisis had been carefully stoked and manipulated by a handful of think tanks funded by the largest banks and corporations in Canada... (p. 257)
To the extent that a social theory or movement has an incorrect view of human nature, to that extent is it susceptible to ponerization. For Marxism or revolutionary socialism, the erroneous view of human nature would be that human nature is a blank slate created by human practice. Its downfall was that it didn't recognize the two types of humans: psychopaths and those with the potential to develop conscience. It shares that downfall with many other ideologies and religions.Where does neoliberalism fit in? One the one hand it clearly has an impoverished view of human nature: nothing but self-interested legal actors freely buying and selling things. But neoliberalism seems more like the vehicle for the ponerization of society at large than an idealistic movement that got corrupted. Or that it's idealism and corruption are one and the same. It is as if it is a purely idealistic when seen from the point of view of psychopaths. Andrew Lobaczewski in Political Ponerologyexplains this strange idealism, the paradise for psychopaths:










Last summer, I observed that there was a "solvency crisis" underneath the ongoing subprime mortgage liquidity squeeze. Central banks can alleviate a "liquidity crisis", but they cannot solve a solvency crisis.War—after all, what is it that the people get? Why—widows, taxes, wooden legs and debt.
Samuel B. Pettengill
"Armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
James Madison, 4th U.S. President (April 20, 1795)
"Let me issue and control a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws".
Nathan Rothschild, 1791